Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL

Lords Amendments agreed to.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY AND MACKINTOSH SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

South Africa (Foreign Minister)

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet the South African Foreign Minister.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands): My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Brotherton: When the Foreign Secretary meets the South African Foreign Minister, on behalf of the nation, will he apologise for the gross misreporting in The Guardian last month about the activities of the South African Embassy in this country, culminating in The Guardian and the BBC talking about the activities of the gallant Colonel Cheeseman?

Mr. Rowlands: We have no responsibility for what the Press prints about any aspects of this problem.

Mr. Hooley: When the Foreign Secretary meets his opposite number in South Africa, will he explain Her Majesty's Government's total opposition to the Bantustan policy of that country and ask when South Africa intends to give up the illegal occupation of Namibia?

Mr. Rowlands: We have no plans for such a meeting. Therefore it is surely unproductive to discuss a hypothetical agenda for a hypothetical meeting. Our future policies on the Bantustans and Namibia have already been made clear to the South African Government.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has the Foreign Office yet received the dossier promised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), bearing in mind that weeks ago it was reported on the radio that it would be ready within three days?

Mr. Rowlands: Yes, we have received information submitted to the Department by my hon. Friend.

Italy

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Italy.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I have no plans to do so at present.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that grave security problems may arise in NATO in the event of Communists coming to power in Italy? What contingency plans do we have to cope with such an eventuality?

Mr. Crosland: I have never thought that there was any advantage to this country, or indeed to anybody, in discussing in advance of the Italian election either what the outcome will be or what we will do on certain hypothetical assumptions. It is right that the Italian people should choose their own Government, and we have no idea what the outcome of the election will be. It seems to be absolutely wrong that we should engage in a public discussion as to what we might do on certain contingency assumptions.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Does my right hon. Friend share the belief that Dr. Kissinger's


well-known fears on this subject are exaggerated, because when the United States has any military secrets it does not entrust them to NATO? Does he agree that that is the case?

Mr. Crosland: My own view is that there are many other methods by which secrets emerge to hostile Powers besides the one that we are now considering.

Mr. Hooson: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the situation in Italy shows that nations should have adequate social reforms, and that if a nation is dominated by one party for too long it leads to this kind of situation? Does he agree that NATO should take greater care to ensure that there is uniform economic development as far as possible within member nations?

Mr. Crosland: I am in favour of one-party domination, provided that it is allied to social reform.

Rhodesia

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Rhodesia.

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in Rhodesia.

Mr. Crosland: The situation continues to give cause for grave concern and the prospects for a negotiated settlement without further bloodshed are obviously receding. But I have not given up hope that the European minority will accept the realities of the situation and the need to negotiate in good faith with the African nationalists on the basis outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement of 22nd March. I strongly urge them to do so before it is too late.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Foreign Secretary endorse what was said by Sir Harry Oppenheimer, who knows a great deal about these matters, to the effect that parliamentary government is better than a majority rule which leads to dictatorship? Will the Government keep this in mind in their efforts to reach a sound constitutional settlement in Rhodesia and in any advice given to Dr. Kissinger or to anybody else who is trying to help.

Mr. Crosland: The realities of the situation and also the morality of the situation demand that the principle of majority rule should be conceded, and should be conceded quickly. The plain fact is that if it is not conceded the prospect for peace in Southern Africa is desperately bleak.

Mr. Grocott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent report of the so-called presidential commission on racial discrimination in Rhodesia has come at least 10 years too late and that even if implemented in full it would rightly be regarded by black Rhodesians as simply window dressing, and that the only conceivable solution for that country is the immediate implementation of majority rule?

Mr. Crosland: I think the report is irrelevant to the present realities of the situation, which are only too horribly clear, and will be clear to the House as a whole. If the principle of majority rule is not conceded, the guerrilla warfare will escalate, the nationalist guerrillas will seek support from outside Africa, and will turn first for that support towards Cuba and the Soviet Union. If that occurs, the United States will intervene on the other side, and the prospects of the most bloody conflagration in Southern Africa will be really desperate.

Mr. Blaker: Would it not be useful if the Foreign Secretary, or even the Prime Minister, were to seek a meeting with Mr. Vorster, the South African Prime Minister, who will be in Europe next week for a discussion about Rhodesia, bearing in mind that our two countries share a common interest in ensuring that constitutional progress there is made by peaceful means?

Mr. Crosland: There has been a Question on the Order Paper on that subject already, but perhaps I could tell the hon. Member that I shall be seeing Dr. Kissinger both on Monday, before he meets Mr. Vorster, and on Friday, after he has met Mr. Vorster. Therefore, we shall certainly have a very close and detailed impression of what occurred at that meeting.

Mr. Ioan Evans: When my right hon. Friend speaks to Dr. Kissinger, will he point out to him that the illegal régime in Rhodesia is being sustained because of the fact that South Africa is trading with


Rhodesia, and that if tomorrow South Africa stopped trading the illegal régime would collapse?

Mr. Crosland: I think I should be mainly concerned, at the meeting with Dr. Kissinger, to discover whether there is any shift in the South African position and to try to discover what is now the attitude of the South Africans in this extraordinarily tricky situation.

Mr. Maudling: The Foreign Secretary very rightly stressed the extreme gravity of the situation, but is he really content, as British Foreign Secretary, to leave any new initiative at the present moment to Dr. Kissinger?

Mr. Crosland: As I have told the House before, the British Government's stand on the position was outlined to the House by my right hon. Friend, now Prime Minister, on 22nd March, and until the preconditions laid down in my right hon. Friend's statement are met we do not believe that there would be any sense in starting a new programme of negotiation.

Mr. Luce: Since the growing war of attrition in Rhodesia is fundamentally against the interest of Rhodesians and the West, may I welcome the release of Mr. Garfield Todd and ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has noted that it is reported on British television this week that Mr. Todd has suggested that a peaceful solution in Rhodesia requires the active encouragement of the Western world, led by Britain? How does the Foreign Secretary respond to that?

Mr. Crosland: Like the hon. Gentleman, I greatly welcome the release of Mr. Garfield Todd. I noted the statement, but nevertheless it remains the conviction of the British Government that, until there is some clear sign of major movement on the part of the white Rhodesian régime, to start a new process or a new programme of negotiation would be a total waste of time.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not a fact that there is no denying that responsibility for the growing conflict in Rhodesia rests entirely with the illegal Smith régime, and that everything possible should be done, including encouraging South Africa not to give military help or

to trade, if there is to be any move at all towards a peaceful solution?

Mr. Crosland: I broadly accept that. I think that the primary and essential responsibility for the present situation lies on the white régime in Rhodesia. As I said before, until there is some sign of a major change of policy and direction on the part of that régime, I think that a new round of endless negotiations would be fruitless.

Mr. Wall: While accepting the principle of majority rule, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he realises that by laying down a timetable of two years he is going exactly the opposite way? Does he not realise that the rapid transfer of power would immediately lead to a civil war between the Mashona and the Matabele?

Mr. Crosland: The two years refers to two things—first, the acceptance of the principle of majority rule and, second, elections for majority rule to be held within the two-year period.
The hon. Gentleman, with respect, referred to a total transfer of power. Nobody has suggested that within that two years the whole of the existing administration would be dismantled and replaced by a totally new one. Indeed, it would be the hope certainly of Her Majesty's Government and of the African leaders that as many of the present white Rhodesians as possible would stay behind in order to help the new régime.

Nuclear Proliferation

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he plans to have in the near future about the prevention of nuclear proliferation with his counterparts in those countries which would be capable of exporting nuclear equipment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): Her Majesty's Government have over the last two years or so pursued an active nuclear non-proliferation policy, part of which relates to the export of nuclear equipment. As my right hon. Friend made clear on 31st March, this involves consultations with other Governments. This policy remains in force and the consultations will continue.

Mr. Forman: Are the hon. Gentleman and the other members of the Government aware that many of us on all sides of the House have a deep concern about the dangers of nuclear proliferation and would like to see the Government pressing for at least two important objectives—first, a total ban on the export of nuclear reprocessing technology, and, secondly, adequate international storage facilities, under strict control, for spent nuclear fuel?

Mr. Tomlinson: The concern of the hon. Gentleman is shared, I am sure, by the whole House, including Her Majesty's Government, but at this stage it has been agreed by those participating in the discussions that progress can best be made on all these issues, important as they are, if confidentiality in the discussions is at present maintained.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the Government take a determined initiative in trying to bring together all the countries that are involved in the sale of arms, both nuclear and conventional, with a view to trying to get a reduction and control of this rapidly growing field of commerce—and a horrific field it is—which is causing so much misery, especially in the Third World countries?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that Her Majesty's Government are playing a full part in all the disarmament negotiations, and we wish to see these negotiations completed on a proper multilateral basis.

Mr. Moonman: I appreciate my hon. Friend's original statement, but does he not think that it will add to our credibility in any discussions we undertake if we have a more consistent policy ourselves in regard to the import of nuclear reprocessing fuels?

Mr. Tomlinson: I take note of the question. I do not think there is any conflict in Her Majesty's Government's policy as it stands at present.

Rhodesia (British Mercenaries)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a further statement on steps being taken to curb the involvement of British mercenaries in Rhodesia.

Mr. Crosland: For the present, I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State told my hon. Friend on 5th and 17th May.

Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the apparent inaction in this area—although there are promises of action—is causing great concern in the House? Will he at least at this stage make quite clear to the House and the country in what sort of offences Britons who take up service with Rhodesian forces could be involved?

Mr. Crosland: I cannot accept that, unless my hon. Friend is willing to define more closely what he means by "inaction". Perfectly clear sanctions have been laid down concerning Rhodesian recruitment, under the Rhodesia sanctions legislation. There was some discussion in the House last night on whether there was a loophole in this matter. This is under very close study in the Department. But I cannot accept that there is inaction. The Director of Public Prosecutions conducted four successful prosecutions in 1974, for example, against magazines which, possibly through ignorance, carried advertisements encouraging immigration into Rhodesia.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under British law—except in the rather special circumstances laid down in the Foreign Enlistment Act—and under international law, it is not a crime to be a mercenary, as such? At a time when British subjects are on trial for their lives because, in a certain country, it is said to be an offence, would it not be bad for the law in this country to be changed?

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman refers to mercenaries in another country. About them, obviously, the less said at this stage the better. I can confirm that although in that case they went out against the strong advice of Her Majesty's Government, as the House knows, under British law it is not a crime to be a mercenary. But there is nothing in British law to stop anyone leaving the country, with or without a passport.

Mr. Whitehead: In view of the fact that some people who may be recruited for service under the illegal régime in Rhodesia could be sent out


by the same agencies that sent these unfortunate and misguided men to Angola, ought not my right hon. Friend to say something about the procedures that allow these people to send men out there—a matter that has been raised in their trial?

Mr. Crosland: I have examined these procedures closely, and there is no doubt that, as the law now stands, nothing incorrect occurred. In other words, they were not allowed out in some fashion suggesting complicity on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Far from that, they went out against the advice of the Government. But nothing incorrect occurred, because, under British law, anyone can leave the country, with or without a passport.
As for the more general future, I should not like to be drawn into a general definition of what is or what is not a mercenary. It was because of uncertainties in the present law that the Diplock Committee was set up, and I think that it will be sensible for us to await the report of that committee.

Mr. Maudling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his firm reassertion of the right of an individual British citizen to leave the country if he so wishes, and that we also welcome his clear distinction between serving as a so-called mercenary or volunteer and committing war crimes in the course of that service?

Mr. Crosland: Perhaps I might make it clear that there is one exception to the right of anyone to leave the country, with or without a passport, namely, if a person is suspected of having committed criminal offences. In the case that is in the minds of many right hon. and hon. Members, a number of those who wished to leave the country were prevented from doing so by the police because they were wanted for or suspected of criminal offences.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's second point about the definition, I should prefer not to be drawn into fundamental discussions until we have the report of the Diplock Committee.

Middle East

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give consideration to taking a new initiative in relation to the Israeli-Arab dispute.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): As I said on 19th May, we hope that negotiations can soon be resumed with the aim of achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. I do not think that this aim would be best served by a new British initiative at this point. We shall, however, continue to watch the situation carefully.

Mr. Walters: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main lessons to be learned from the tragic and horrid events in the Lebanon is that there will be no settlement but, rather, continuing instability, bloodshed and war until the rights of the Palestinians and the question of Palestinian statehood are resolved? They cannot be resolved without a peace settlement. Do not the Government intend to do something more active to try to break the present deadlock?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman's question fell into two parts. On the first part, I agree substantially that there needs to be a recognition of the special problems of the Palestinians and an understanding that they must be accommodated within any lasting settlement.
I cannot share the hon. Gentleman's view with regard to his second point. There is always a tendency in this House to expect Britain to take initiatives when they would not produce solutions but might actually complicate the prospects of success. Certainly the British Government are available to act if that seems right, but to take an ill-considered initiative is not the way in which the British Government should proceed.

Mr. Moonman: Despite the basis of the previous question, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the issue in the Lebanon is about the rolling forces of the Syrians and that it has less to do with the immediate circumstances associated with the Palestinians? This


matter must be dealt with, but I think that we are confusing the issue.

Mr. Hattersley: The situation in the Lebanon has been caused by forces which are far too complex to be described in answer to a supplementary question. They are partly historical and partly geographical, but certainly an element in them is the one referred to in the first supplementary question. Our hope now is that this long unresolved problem, part of which concerns the exploitation of one community by another, can be solved in a way that brings peace to that presently unhappy country and brings the tragedy to a swift end.

Mr. Aitken: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the current stage of the siege of Beirut indicates that there may soon be immediate problems of starvation and disease in that city? Will he consider, in co-operation with the European Powers, making certain contingency plans for swift relief and humanitarian action to ensure that both British subjects and the Lebanese people have, from the European end, some assistance in the tragedy, which may well become even worse?

Mr. Hattersley: Many citizens of Beirut are already suffering considerable deprivation, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the situation may well deteriorate. I assure him and the House that Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of this and are prepared to help as best we can if the situation deteriorates substantially.

Mr. Colin Jackson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Arab nations are deeply disappointed about the supine attitude of the British Foreign Office towards the Middle East crisis? The fact that, apparently, our policy in the past has been step by step behind Dr. Kissinger may now lose its validity completely as Dr. Kissinger may take his final step out of office.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that a policy based on our wish to do what we can as long as that is practical and right is properly to be described as "supine". I reiterate what I said earlier. There is a tendency to believe that any initiative is better than no initiative. I do not share that view.

Mr. Luce: Since the construction of Jewish settlements in Arab-occupied territory, quite contrary to United Nations resolutions, is likely to provoke even further conflict in the Middle East, and in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly endorsed this view, what is he doing to ensure that the Israeli Government are aware of the views of both the British Government and the European Community?

Mr. Hattersley: That view is generally shared by our colleagues in the EEC, and we are making it very clear to the Israeli Government. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) enables me to do it at almost every Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNCTAD IV

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth concerning the outcome of the UNCTAD Conference in Nairobi.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): None so far, Sir.

Mr. Spearing: Is not that a disappointing and rather disgraceful answer, in view of the fact that it was through the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting that the original initiative for some movement in this matter came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson)? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Commonwealth group of experts not only endorsed the principle of a common fund but hoped that it would emerge? Is is not time for the group of experts to be reconvened, so that the Commonwealth can make a specific contribution to the forthcoming discussions on the matter?

Mr. Luard: We recognise that the Commonwealth has had continuing discussions on this question, and we have been in close touch with members of the Commonwealth both at Nairobi and before. The Commonwealth group of experts still exists. Its final report will not be delivered until shortly before the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting next summer, when, of course, we shall consider it.

Mr. Tugendhat: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when Britain's economic strength is so low, one of our real sources of potential influence is our joint membership of the Community and the Commonwealth, and that that should give this country the ability to play a much more influential and pivotal rôle in discussions of the kind that took place at UNCTAD? The previous Prime Minister used the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference for this purpose. Is it not very disappointing that the Minister cannot provide more positive answers to Questions of this kind?

Mr. Luard: My answer was positive. I made it clear that we had had continuing discussions with the Commonwealth and also with the EEC on all these questions, including the matters discussed at UNCTAD in Nairobi. What this and the original Question seem to imply is that any right-minded Government should have supported from the beginning the idea of a common fund. There is room for a difference of view on that issue. We have to be concerned not only about our own interests but about those of smaller developing countries which are consumers rather than producers of commodities. It is not clear that such countries would be benefited by a common fund. It is on those grounds that we have taken the attitude that we have.

Mr. Hooley: Does the Minister not agree that there are two forums—the EEC and the Commonwealth? Unfortunately, the EEC is totally split on this issue, as was shown at Nairobi. There is a very powerful case for trying to establish a Commonwealth policy on the basis of the excellent reports produced by the special committee of experts.

Mr. Luard: The fact of the matter is that the Commonwealth Governments arc as divided on this matter as is the EEC. Perhaps this division is for even more obvious reasons, because their interests are more clearly divided. We have had continuing discussions in the Commonwealth, including several meetings at Nairobi, to try to patch up these differences. My hon. Friend is right; we should continue these discussions and try to reach some kind of common understanding in the Commonwealth. However, I am sad to say that at the moment there is not too great a hope of that.

Helsinki Agreement

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the implementation of the Helsinki Agreement with the Soviet Ambassador.

Mr. Tomlinson: My right hon. Friend has not yet had an opportunity to discuss this subject with the Soviet Ambassador. It is, however, a topic that he has very much in mind. The Soviet Ambassador is calling on him later this afternoon and their discussion is likely to include CSCE implementation.

Mr. Sproat: When the Minister's right hon. Friend speaks to the Soviet Ambassador this afternoon will he make it clear that the review conference at Belgrade next year must include not just consideration of proposals for future co-operation but a detailed scrutiny of the way in which the various signatories to the Helsinki Agreement have or have not carried out that agreement? Will he make it clear that Belgrade must not be just a meeting of civil servants but must be conducted at a high political level?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend heard what the hon. Member said. The review conference is more than a year away and it is too early to have any details in terms of our formal negotiating position. The progress achieved by the participating States in the intervening period clearly will be an important factor affecting our thinking.

Mr. Amery: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread anxiety in a number of countries, caused by the concept attributed to Dr. Kissinger's aide, Mr. Sohnenfeldt, of the organic relation between the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? Whether this concept was rightly or wrongly attributed, it has been very widespread. Will the Foreign Secretary make it quite clear that we have no part in any such concept?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is our understanding that this was totally wrongly attributed.

Mr. Heffer: At the review conference in Belgrade, is the Minister prepared to enter discussions on freedom of travel


from Eastern European countries? I have a constituent who wants to marry a Romanian subject. That person wants to come here after the marriage but has been refused permission to leave Romania. This has caused great distress. In view of the fact that the Soviet Union has tremendous influence with the rest of the Communist countries in Eastern Europe, this matter of free travel should be fully explored and brought home to them very clearly.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure that the Government share my hon. Friend's concern about freedom of travel. If he will let me have the details of this particular case, we shall look into it.

Mr. Blaker: In spite of the Helsinki Agreement, the Soviet Union continues to make clear that détente is no bar to their efforts to overthrow the Western way of life, legally or illegally, peacefully or by non-peaceful means. Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the Soviet Ambassador that this is not acceptable?

Mr. Tomlinson: There would be differences of view about some of the definitions of détente. The Soviet Government have taken steps in a number of fields to apply the principles of the Helsinki Agreement and a note outlining the actions they have taken towards implementation of the Final Act appeared in Hansard on 10th March. There has since been a Soviet notification of a second military manoeuvre. However, we are mistaken if we have expectations of achieving success in every area of the Helsinki Agreement. What we have to do in future talks between the participating countries is to try to consolidate what has been achieved.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the implementation of the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement.

Mr. Tomlinson: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer on this point given by my right hon. Friend on 10th March. We shall not be satisfied until all the points in the Final Act are being met by all signatories. Some progress is being made to adjust existing practices to the provisions of the Final Act. But any proper assessment must wait until the 1977 review meeting.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister congratulate the producers of the Granada "World in Action" film which was smuggled out of the Soviet Union and shown on television on Monday night? This film revealed in the clearest terms the callous way in which the Soviet Union is disregarding the Final Act, particularly in relation to its Jewish minority. When the Foreign Secretary sees the Soviet Ambassador this afternoon, will he please convey the anxiety felt on all sides of the House in connection with this ill treatment?

Mr. Tomlinson: I note what my hon. and learned Friend said in relation to the "World in Action" film. The Final Act of the conference does provide for freer movement of individuals and families for short visits and settlement. I quote from a passage in a speech by the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir Harold Wilson) on 30th July 1975. He said:
I hope that what we have each committed ourselves to in Europe can apply to those within our own countries who want to start a new life outside Europe, whether it be in the Middle East or elsewhere.
Those are sentiments that will be echoed on all sides of this House.

Sir John Hall: Long before the Helsinki Conference concluded, the Inter-Parliamentary Union held a conference in Helsinki, over which I presided. In less than five days that conference produced an agreement as comprehensive as the latest formal agreement of the Helsinki Conference on European security. In view of that fact, would it not be cheaper and more satisfactory to allow such conferences in future to be conducted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think that comments of such a pessimistic nature as that are necessarily helpful to the Belgrade Review Conference.

Mr. Whitehead: As the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement has a specific section about newspaper circulation, will the Minister make representations to the Government of Czechoslovakia, who have stopped the circulation and sale in their country of all British newspapers, including the Morning Star?

Mr. Tomlinson: I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will write to me about this matter, and I will look at it.

Mr. Rifkind: Is there any tangible evidence at all that the Soviet Union and its allies have changed their fundamental attitude towards the human rights of a number of their own citizens? Will the Government indicate whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the spirit of the Soviet Union's implementation of the Helsinki Agreement?

Mr. Tomlinson: As I have already said, a note outlining the actions that the Soviet Union has taken appeared in Hansard on 10th March. Obviously the Government are not going to be satisfied until all aspects of the agreement are fully implemented by the signatories to it.

Chilean Embassy Staff

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many accredited diplomatic staff there are at the Chilean Embassy in London.

Mr. Rowlands: Thirteen, Sir.

Mr. Cook: Did my hon. Friend see the statement made by Mr. John Cooper last month in which he said he had been hired for more than two years to collect information about organisations in Britain concerned with human rights in Chile, and to disrupt their activities? Has an inquiry taken place into these allegations? Will my hon. Friend make representations to the Chilean Ambassador, telling him that we will not tolerate this sort of spying on the legitimate activities of British citizens and the political refugees under our protection?

Mr. Rowlands: I am aware of the anonymous allegations made in a television programme. Such allegations are disquieting, but there is as yet no substantive evidence to back them up.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As our trade with Chile is so important, does the Minister not agree that it is time we once again had full diplomatic relations and exchange of personnel with Chile, as we have with many other dictatorial régimes of which hon. Members may disapprove?

Mr. Rowlands: We withdrew our ambassador as a result of a particularly distasteful and unpleasant case that involved the torture and detention of a British citizen for 60 days without charge on any offence. That is a most unsatisfactory and distasteful situation, and we were fully justified in the action that we took.

Mr. Heffer: Now that the submarines have been completed on the Clyde, are the Government giving any consideration to impounding them and ensuring that they do not go to this despicable Chilean Government?

Mr. Rowlands: The first of the two submarines has been handed over to the Chilean Government. The second has not yet been, and the matter is under review in the light of payments and other matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Tindemans Report

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the EEC Foreign Ministers for a discussion about those parts of the Tindemans Report relating to foreign policy.

Mr. Crosland: At the Foreign Affairs Council on 29th and 30th June.

Mr. Blaker: The Foreign Secretary made it clear that he regarded the concerting of foreign policy as one of the most fruitful lines of development for the Community. That process does not need to wait for joint decisions on the Tindemans Report. Has he had time to give his attention to concerting foreign policy with our partners on matters such as Yugoslavia, Spain and Cyprus, which are so important to the Community?

Mr. Crosland: I accept what the hon. Member says. At Luxembourg last Saturday, at one of a series of informal meetings of Foreign Ministers, we had a considerable discussion on the objective of concerting foreign policy. Without going into great detail, I can assure the hon. Member that there was a wide measure of agreement. I told our partners very strongly what I feel very strongly—that


the failure of the EEC to concert a common position on UNCTAD was a major setback for the EEC.

Sir G. de Freitas: What are the Government doing to prepare for the first six months of next year, when Britain will be in the chair of the European Council and, as a consequence, our diplomats abroad will be called upon to speak collectively for all nine Governments?

Mr. Crosland: We are doing an enormous amount of preparatory work, both of a physical character, to decide where all the innumerable meetings should be held, and in terms of contingency planning on policy. A large amount of work is going on, not only in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but in other Departments, to prepare for next year.

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures have been decided upon within the Council of Ministers for handling the Tindemans Report.

Mr. Hattersley: Foreign Ministers agreed in May to devote some time at each of their meetings to consideration of the report, chapter by chapter. They are expected to report back to the European Council at the end of November, though they may make an interim report to the July European Council.

Mr. Arnold: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny his own belief in the accuracy of Mr. Tindemans' remarks when he said in his report that public opinion wanted to see results but that he doubted whether there was sufficient will in individual Governments to overcome the practical problems towards encouraging wider European co-operation?

Mr. Hattersley: That is a general and almost philosophical supplementary question, which it is literally impossible to answer. However, I shall try to answer it by saying that I am sure the people of the Community want to see some results from the Community. What they want is not some grand declaration of overall constitutional design but to see the Community making sense for them in terms of living standards, the fight against unemployment, and regional policy. It

is the attitude of the British Government that the Community should concentrate more and more on that aspect of its work.

Mr. Atkinson: Is it the policy of the British Government to encourage further European countries, other than Greece, into full membership of the Community? Is it the fact that the United States Government support that policy?

Mr. Hattersley: I have no idea of the attitude that the United States Government take on these matters, not least because they have nothing to do with the Government of the United States. These are matters for the Community and for the treaty provisions governing new members. I am happy to confirm that the Community looks forward to the application by Greece to join the Community. I think that accession negotiations will soon begin. All applications have to be treated on their merits. Some severe rules govern those who may or may not apply. Application is open only to European democracies, but if other democracies wish to enter the Community we shall look upon their application within the terms of the treaty, which provides that they are entitled to apply for membership.

Mr. Hurd: In his report Mr. Tindemans laid great stress on the importance of joint foreign policy action by the Community. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with his colleagues, at the next meeting that he attends, the possibility of an early Community initiative on Cyprus? Would it not be possible to find an experienced European statesman who would go to the various capitals, as the representative of the Community, to bring the principals together over a period of, possibly, six months? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to use the authority of the Community to promote a settlement of this problem before it erupts into a further explosion?

Mr. Hattersley: The authority of the Community has been used over the past year to persuade the parties to the inter-communal talks to accept the disciplines and the prospects of those talks ending in success with a good deal more realism than in the past. The Community's coordinated efforts will continue to try to get the talks going in a satisfactory way under the chairmanship of Dr. Waldheim.


I personally doubt whether any other Community initiative would be of value. I believe that the future for Cyprus and the exercise of bringing the country back to something like normal conditions must lie with the inter-communal talks. The Community has co-ordinated its policy to make those talks a success.

Foreign Ministers

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he next expects to meet representatives of the EEC.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Foreign Ministers of the EEC.

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to met his EEC colleagues.

Mr. Crosland: I met other EEC Foreign Ministers at an informal meeting at Senningen on 12th June. The next Foreign Affairs Council will be on 29th and 30th June, but I expect to meet a number of my colleagues on other occasions before then.

Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with his EEC colleagues the problem regarding overseas students' fees, bearing in mind that we are virtually the only Common Market country to discriminate against foreign students in this way, and that many of the Common Market countries do not charge tuition fees at all? Will he resist any attempts to increase this discrimination, especially in view of reports of a Cabinet study group proposal for a 400 per cent. further increase in overseas students' fees?

Mr. Crosland: The last great row in the House about overseas fees was when I was Secretary of State for Education and Science. I do not see why I should take responsibility for a second row. The question of overseas students' fees is under active consideration, but I must insist that it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Marten: Did the Foreign Secretary notice the remarks, last weekend, of Mr. Gaston Thorn, the current President

of the Council of Ministers, who voiced his alarm at the inability of Community Ministers to reach a consensus on so many things? He added that the Community could not last for long like this. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread feeling that the Community is now beginning to head for disarray? That expression has been used by many eminent pro-Marketeers, and they are deeply anxious about it. Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome, before he takes the chair next year, an inquiry into why things are not working as expected?

Mr. Crosland: I note the hon. Member's extreme solicitude for the successful working of the Community, and I share it. I should be very happy to hear his views at any time about how we can improve matters. I believe that Mr. Thorn, at the end of a long and exhausting day, was unduly gloomy in what he said. But it is proper to say that as a newcomer to these meetings I am also concerned at the difficulty that the Community finds in reaching decisions, and we have reached the stage when we all ought to think out exactly what our objectives are and exactly what are the objectives of the Community. I hope that there will be a debate on this subject tomorrow, and I hope that in a foreign affairs debate that we shall probably have before the end of July the House will turn its attention to what the future of the Community ought to be.

Mr. Crawford: Will the Foreign Secretary tell his colleagues in the EEC to do something about the disgraceful discrimination in Europe against Scotch whisky? As a result of that discrimination, sales of whisky in Italy have dropped 36 per cent. over the last year. That is against the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Crosland: I shall look into this matter. I must confess that whenever I go to the Continent, whatever I am offered in the way of fine wines of splendid vintage, I drink absolutely nothing but Scotch whisky.

Mr. Noble: When my right hon. Friend next meets representatives of the EEC will he discuss with them the multifibre arrangement and the import-sharing agreement? While these may be an acceptable framework for trade in textiles,


they place an unfair burden on the British industry, particularly in circumstances in which they share future burdens and not past burdens, and in which there is still a growth of imports when the industry remains in a recession.

Mr. Crosland: I am pleased to learn from my right hon. Friend that this is one of the subjects that is to be debated tomorrow.

Harmonisation

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures of harmonisation in the EEC he expects to discuss during 1976.

Mr. Hattersley: I expect the Council will give further consideration during 1976 to proposals by the Commission within the framework of the General Programme on the Abolition of Technical Barriers to Trade.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the motion of censure yesterday mounted by Euro-fanatics is an indication of the growing unease about the way in which the Community is now operating? Does he accept that the recent directive requiring veterinary inspectors to replace environmental health officers is also an indication of that, and that it is unnecessary and totally unreasonable? Will he assure the House that he will resist measures on harmonisation when our existing standards are reasonable and satisfactory?

Mr. Hattersley: I accept the implication in the third part of the question, that harmonisation for its own sake—it is currently called gratuitous harmonisation—should be resisted, and the Government will resist it. I cannot share the opinions that my hon. Friend expressed in the rest of his question. Whatever the motion of censure was about yesterday, I do not think it conformed with any principles to which my hon. Friend would subscribe. On the second part of his question, he must put the point specifically to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. On a number of these issues, attempts to improve conditions within the Community are carried out in the name of the Community, whereas before they would have been done on much the same scale on the authority

of the British Government. The criticism would then have accrued to the British Government, whereas now it accrues to the Community. We have to judge individual propositions on their merits, and that is what we shall continue to do.

Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British citizens are now the largest group of those who are breaking our animal quarantine regulations? Will he consider inviting our EEC partners to institute, for the animals of British visitors, quarantine regulations similar to those that we impose upon the animals of foreigners coming into this country? That seems to be the only way in which we can prevent our own citizens misbehaving in this way.

Mr. Hattersley: I should like to give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question. I should do so if I understood it, and if I thought it relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. If he tables a Question I shall do my best to accommodate him.

Mr. Jay: Should we not have more harmony in Western Europe if we had less harmonisation?

Mr. Hattersley: I hope that my right hon. Friend, like me, takes an empiric view of these matters. He will have heard the view that I expressed in answer to an earlier question—namely, that the problems and prospects of harmonization should be examined and considered on their merits. When it seems to the Government that benefit will accrue from harmonisation—the removal of some of the non-tariff barriers to trade would be beneficial to British industry—we shall support it. On the other hand, when it seems unnecessary or gratuitous, we shall oppose it.

Mr. Jessel: Would it not be better to talk of uniformity rather than of harmonisation? Does the Minister agree that harmonisation has a pleasant musical sound about it, which tends to draw people's thinking away from judging these matters impartially, on their merits?

Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry to have to enter into a semantic argument with the hon. Gentleman. Surely uniformity is an extreme form of harmonisation. As the Government want to take a moderate


view of harmonisation, we do not wish to go right to the end of the road, which is the implication of the question.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that at present harmonisation is resulting in an astonishing number of civil servants of all nine member States spending a great deal of time on the most astounding trivia, ranging from the harmonisation of mayonnaise to the standardisation of continental time? It is the time that is being spent on such extraordinary and totally useless measures that is adding to the cost for the taxpayer and bringing the whole Common Market administration into disrepute. Will my right hon. Friend make some effort to ensure that harmonisation is concerned with useful measures and not utterly useless ones?

Mr. Hattersley: I have already said that I believe that harmonisation should happen only when there is some benefit to accrue. However, I urge my hon. Friend not to think of harmonisation in such a wholly total way—either wholly bad or wholly good. For example, two years ago many of us who now support—myself among them—a regulation to make uniform the fitting of rear-view mirrors on agricultural vehicles thought—myself included—that it was a funny proposition. However, I understand it has made it easier for British tractor manufacturers to sell into the EEC. That sort of harmonisation seems wholly beneficial.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On an important detail, is the Minister aware that there is a certain lack of harmony among British chicken breeders on the New York-dressed poultry issue? Will he bring the House up to date about this matter? Is he seeking to achieve a situation that will enable us to sell New York-dressed poultry within this country, even if in future it is not possible to do so between countries of the EEC?

Mr. Hattersley: The question of New York-dressed poultry is eminently a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I must not trespass on his preserves.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important item of harmonisation on the EEC agenda

at the moment is the view of member States on direct elections? Will he deny reports that Britain is one of two Governments holding up an agreement on direct elections? Will he and his right hon. Friends press ahead with harmonisation on this issue as soon as possible?

Mr. Hattersley: I am not sure whether direct elections legitimately come under the heading of harmonisation. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of Britain holding up agreement against a majority opinion. Britain has been as co-operative as is consistent with preserving the British national interest. As for pressing ahead, we have made our position clear. We did so in the two-day debate in March. When the Select Committee reports, which I hope it soon will, no doubt the House will be able to express its view on the way that we should press on and the terms in which the pressing should continue.

Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other EEC Ministers about the Icelandic fisheries dispute.

Mr. Crosland: Throughout the Icelandic fisheries dispute and since its conclusion Her Majesty's Government have kept in very close touch about it with all Community Governments and with the Commission.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable sympathy and admiration for the courage and realism that he has used in extricating this country from the untenable position in which it had been placed by the jingoistic bragging of his predecessor? Will he draw the lesson from this incident, and in seeking to define a future fisheries policy pay regard to obtainable objectives and the common interests of our partners?

Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, which I hope will be noted in Humberside. As for the latter part of his remarks, I accept the broad objective, subject to my view that the British national interest in this case is of overriding importance.

Mr. James Johnson: Without wishing in any manner to have a post mortem on this subject, and bearing in mind that in my right hon. Friend's constituency and in mine many vessels are now being laid up, will he be prepared, in the event of our not getting another agreement on 1st December, to ask the EEC to impose a tariff upon Icelandic exports of fish into the Community?

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend is very vocal on these matters but, with respect, he does not always get his facts correct. If he had bothered to read the text of the agreement, which, as a Humberside MP, he should have done, he would have seen that it is made clear that in the view of the British Government Protocol 6 should apply only for the duration of the six months agreement with Iceland, unless and until some further long-term agreement is made. My hon. Friend has made enough criticisms of the agreement, without getting his facts totally and completely wrong.

Mr. Wall: Has the Minister discussed the extension of fisheries limits to 200 miles, with a 50-mile exclusive economic zone, which has become even more essential in view of the effects of the settlement of the Icelandic dispute?

Mr. Crosland: At the last Council of Ministers meeting my right hon. Friend the Minister of State described in broad outline the British negotiating position. As far as I am concerned, that is the final position on the exclusive coastal belt. If we achieve our aims in this matter, there is no doubt that in total the catch for British industry should in future be roughly what it has been in the past, although, as the hon. Gentleman will know, there will be an enormous shift in the character of the catch.

Mr. Watt: Will the Secretary of State reach a speedy decision with his EEC colleagues on who is to patrol the fishing limits round Britain? Will he quickly place orders for the boats and the aircraft that will be required for such purposes?

Mr. Crosland: That is a pertinent question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has foreseen this situation for some time past and has been placing orders of a character that will meet the hon. Gentleman's demands.

Mr. Prescott: Does my right hon. Friend accept the view expressed by Commissioner Lardinois yesterday that anything beyond a 12-mile limit is not possible without a change in the Treaty? Does he agree that it means the fishing policy depending upon quotas and national enforcement, which will be disastrous for our fishing industry and reflects a negotiating posture in which we are likely to lose yet again?

Mr. Crosland: I did not read the remarks made by Commissioner Lardinois yesterday. Therefore, I do not like to give a snap off-the-cuff judgment on them. On what my hon. Friend said, however, they would meet with considerable resistance from the British Government.

Mr. Brotherton: Despite the Secretary of State's apparent determination not to help Humberside fishermen, will he tell the House that he will do his best to ensure that a 50-mile exclusive economic zone is made available for British fishermen after the Law of the Sea Conference reports?

Mr. Crosland: The Government have already publicly made known their view on the common fisheries policy. I hope that, for a change, the hon. Gentleman will tell his constituents the truth of the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL EXPLANATION

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Sedgemore: I should like to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that a remark made by me in the House yesterday was in no sense meant to be a personal reflection on the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). I hope that my remark was not interpreted in that sense. If so, I apologise to the right hon. Lady.

CUMBERNAULD AND KILSYTH DISTRICT COUNCIL (MANUAL WORKERS)

Mr. Canavan: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the industrial dispute between Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council and certain of its manual workers.


I submit that this is an important matter on several grounds. It is important, first, to the workers and their families, many of whom are my constituents, who are being asked by the district council to accept a wage cut of up to £6 per week. Not surprisingly, the workers are resisting this proposal, and the strike is now in its fifth week.
It is important, too, because of the potential health hazard to the whole community due to the accumulation of refuse in the streets and other public places.
I submit that it is also important because of the highly irresponsible and incompetent behaviour of the SNP-controlled council. It is not only failing in its duty to the community, but it is trying to pass the buck to the Government by claiming that the Government have not given it enough money to pay its workers. The provost of the council has repeatedly made false statements and even denied that the district council has received from the Government an increase of over £127,000 in rate support grant for the current financial year compared with last year—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A Standing Order No. 9 application is the opportunity not for a speech on political arguments, but to advance the hon. Gentleman's case.

Mr. Canavan: Paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 9 states:
In determining whether a matter is proper to be discussed"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not free to call into question the ruling that I have just made—at any rate, not in that fashion.

Mr. Canavan: I am not calling your ruling into question, Mr. Speaker. I am on another point. Paragraph (4) continues:
Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of Ministers of the Crown or could come within the scope of ministerial action.
I wish to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that the district has already been visited by Government inspectors. Although this is primarily a local authority matter and the local authority must shoulder the blame, there is nevertheless a certain amount of scope for ministerial action.
Government health inspectors have already visited the place. After an emergency council meeting the other day, the Secretary of State for Scotland was asked to intervene. There is also the possibility of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service coming in. It comes in in some way under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Employment.
Lastly, this matter requires urgent consideration as the strike is in its fifth week and the situation is deteriorating due to the provocative action of the council, which has recently been trying to break the strike by bringing in scab labour from other places. This has inflamed the situation and made it of urgent proportions.
The health hazard also requires urgent action. The other day a seven-year-old boy was bitten by a rat near one of the emergency rubbish dumps. It is significant, however, that the boy's mother said that the strikers were right to hold out against a reduction in their wages.
It is obvious that the council has lost control of the situation. If the SNP councillors were honourable people, they would resign. They have abandoned their duty to their own workers and to the whole community. The whole situation is typical of the social and industrial anarchy which would be caused by SNP rule in Scotland.
I submit that Parliament should give urgent consideration to this important matter to try to get a just settlement for the benefit of the workers and the whole community.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the industrial dispute between Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council and certain of its manual workers.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Standing Order but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to all the representations that have been made, but I have to rule that the hon.


Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

HOUSE OF LORDS (ABOLITION)

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the House of Lords.
There are many reasons—[Interruption.] Not so much applause, or I shall not have enough time. I will attempt to indicate several reasons why I think that it is necessary to bring in this Bill. First, I have been under great pressure from Labour Members of Parliament, most of them on these Benches and a few who are not present today despite the fact that no pairing system is operating. I take the view that many constituency Labour Parties want to know where their Members stand on this matter. One of the main reasons that they have advanced to me in the course of discussions throughout the past few weeks has been that, so far as many of the super-democrats on this side of the House are concerned, the House of Lords—a non-elected, non-democratic body—has no place in modern society.
In fact, considering the proposed devolution, as I see it, there are no proposals for second chambers of non-elected Members in Wales or Scotland or in the Convention in Northern Ireland. I assume that Scottish Nationals, Welsh Nationals and Northern Ireland Members of Parliament will flood into the Lobby behind me to ensure that we get rid of this institution.
I hope that Liberal Members are also here in force. I hope, too, that the contestants for the Liberal leadership will indicate clearly whether they are prepared to get rid of the House of Lords. My guess is that the Young Liberals will be anxious to know whether one or other of the contestants for the party leadership is prepared to back the case which they have advanced over many years.
This, therefore, is a unique opportunity. The Trades Union Congress is meeting at Central Hall. It has said on some occasions, sometimes behind cupped

hands and sometimes more openly—it depends on the company it is keeping—that it would like to get rid of the House of Lords. However, one of the contingents, the NUM, passed a resolution in November saying quite clearly that it wanted to see the abolition of the House of Lords. It is true that I was present. I did not vote. Nevertheless the union passed that resolution, notwithstanding the fact that there might be some in the NUM who might like to get to the House of Lords; but that is another argument.
I should like, seriously, to put to hon. Members what the other place does in practice. I have been doing some research this morning. My investigations lead me to one conclusion. It is that when a Tory Government are in office, an elected Government in the House of Commons, the tendency is for the House of Lords then to cross the t's, dot the i's and insert the commas, and nothing more. On some occasions the House of Lords does not even do that.
When the Common Market legislation went through in 1973—one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest, in which we have been involved in the past 25 years—the House of Lords, because it was Tory legislation, did absolutely nothing. It did not even register a single comma, in order that there could not be any further progress on further stages of the Bill.
However, when a Labour Government are in power the situation is very different. I do not want to recall all the instances, although there is the classic example of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, in which we were finally defeated and ultimately had to invoke the Parliament Act, way back in November 1975, when we lost the Bill, or, at least, it was defeated by the Tories, the Liberals and all the other cross-benchy types in the House of Lords, by 186 votes to 86.
The Employment Protection Bill was defeated 11 times. The House of Lords ripped apart the Community Land Bill. It is true that it got some assistance, at the time and afterwards, from some who were deposited on the Treasury Bench, perhaps for the same reasons. Nevertheless, those in the House of Lords were responsible in the main for decimating


that very important piece of our manifesto.
Today, all in all, as I see it, the House of Lords is nothing more than a Tory longstop. When the lady in red chiffon has difficulty in stopping legislation in this House, she instructs her "bovver boys" in ermine to put the boot in. In my opinion, that just about sums up the practicalities of what happens in the House of Lords.
What about its composition? I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends have actually stopped to examine that. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House examined it in 1968 and 1969 and came to certain conclusions. I assume that he still holds those same conclusions today and will act upon the proposals I am putting forward. Over 1,100 peers can claim £13·50 a day. It is true that they do not all do so. Some 820 hereditary peers are still closeted in that place, if they deign to attend. There are 272 life peers and 26 bishops. Out of that number, 400 take the Tory Whip—and on some occasions we can manage to muster as many as 130. That is the sum total of those who are prepared to take the Labour Whip. To get them all in the House of Lords at the same time to vote would be a miracle.
Some of my hon. Friends, and probably some Opposition Members too, would argue that there are a number of crossbenchers who take a rather impartial and objective view about any piece of legislation going through Parliament. Based upon my investigations into the way that they have voted on contentious pieces of legislation, nothing is further from the truth. For example, in November 1975 on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, when 106 peers went through the Lobby to defeat us, 73 cross-benchers went in with the Tories and only 26 went in with Labour. Therefore, let us have no more fancy arguments about having life peers who, coming from the main streams of industry, can vote impartially either for Labour or for the Tories. Nothing is further from the truth.
Where do these people come from, in the main? It is true that a few of them have got to the House of Lords as a result of spending a few years on these Benches. There are a few honourable

men among them—very few—and women. Perhaps I could name the mother of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). She tries her best. She has difficulties because she is surrounded by scores, indeed hundreds, of others who are prepared to vote against her on the occasions when they find it necessary.
The Big Four banks have 21 Lords representing them in the other place. The other banks have 23 more. Insurance companies have another 28. The top 50 private companies have another 25. The Daily Mirror has several. It is no wonder they spend a lot of time assisting the Government in trying to sell their pay policy—although I am told that the fellow who is running the Sun is writing editorials hoping to get a Tory victory, because he has managed to get one as well, under Labour. There are other Press barons, as well—those from The Times and the Daily Telegraph. There is a horde of people who are representative of those in the very highest elite of our society, and very few who come from the stratum of society which, by and large, has to provide the wealth of this country—those 25 million who work by hand and brain.
Some 20 peers alone own 2 million acres of land. That is a lot of land. It is no wonder that they took the action they did on the Community Land Bill.
The same sort of thing applies to education. Out of the 1,100 peers, 432 went to Eton—that surprised me—and another 255 went to other public schools. I suppose that among them there are a few who started their existence, perhaps, not far from where I stand now. It is no wonder that they voted to keep fee-paying grammar schools last November—on the last day of term. They voted 134 to 33. I wonder where the rest were.
With all due deference, I suggest that when the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill gets to the House of Lords, if it manages to get there—if it is pushed there by those on the Government Front Bench here, although I am told that some are wilting on that particular matter—there will be no fancy arguments about ships and rigs and hybrids. They will kill it. They will not need those technical arguments to flatten the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
The same will apply to pay beds legislation. Do any of my hon. Friends


imagine that those who represent the Tory Party, those who represent the elite and the wealthy in our society, will not stop up night after night if necessary to prevent that legislation from making any further progress?
That is roughly the sort of composition of the House of Lords. That is where they came from.
What about attendance? Out of the total, about 25 per cent. manage to turn up for work. One can pick up the House of Lords Hansard for any given Session and find references made to miners and to other industrial workers who have managed to stay at work for 85 per cent. of the time. Some of their Lordships turn up for work, but that does not necessarily mean that they are going to vote. According to research done for me by the Library, although an average of 262 went to work in 1974–75, only an average of about 130 actually stayed to vote. It seems to me, therefore, that they walked through the door, nodded in the right direction, got the £13·50 tax-free attendance fee, went for a drink in the Bar, and went out of the side door.
To those who might argue that there is a need for a second Chamber, I merely say that they may have their arguments about that. Incidentally, although it is not part of my argument today, I would argue that there is no need for a second Chamber. New Zealand and Sweden do not have one. It is almost like saying that a local authority which passes all the necessary rating requirements and all those other important matters needs a chamber of commerce in order to look at what it has been doing. I ask you!
There have been many times when attempts have been made to change this institution. There was the Life Peerages Act of 1958 and the introduction of women in 1963. There have been no hereditary peerages since 1964, and there was an attempt to repeal the House of Lords in 1969. However, it is still very much a reactionary and backward institution. Whenever there has been an opportunity to change this institution in any other form, it has failed. It is all summed up in one sentence. Our ex-Prime Minister made more life peerages than any other Prime Minister in history—close on 200. We still have a job to find 100 who will go through the Lobbies

and vote Labour. It is time we got rid of it.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise. I got carried away, and that is why I allowed the hon. Gentleman two minutes over time.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has presented his case with typical moderation. I wonder sometimes why it is that we have bad relations between the other place and the party opposite. I can only tell them that it is reciprocated.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was really being fair. Perhaps it was pique at the recent strengthening of another place by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who has put some fine entrepreneurs into that place in his latest honours list. The hon. Member for Bolsover should also remember that on that list were many people who have greatly helped the Labour movement. There were the Prime Minister's personal political secretary, his physician, his publisher, his butcher, his baker and his mackintosh-maker. They are all additions which I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome. I also do not think he will be thanked by many ex-Labour politicians who have been put out to grass on £13·50 a day in another place. I think his strictures upon them were very hard. He seemed to feel they have not earned their rest.
I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman's motive was that he disliked the hereditary principle, but then, I remember, he voted for the extension of the hereditary principle to agricultural tenancies. He voted for the Dock Work Regulation Bill, which extends the same sort of regime to the whole of the dock labour force. Indeed, I looked up the hon. Gentleman personally in Who's Who, in which he said that he came from "good working-class mining stock". That is the hereditary principle. That cannot be the objection which has motivated the hon. Gentleman this afternoon. No, it is his light and subtle touch on the question of constitutional


reform which moves him—[An HON. MEMBER: "Declare your interest."] I have no interest to declare—[An HON. MEMBER: "Your father has."] My father is dead, Mr. Speaker, and I do not see how I can declare an interest of a dead father.
The constitutional aspect is what motivates the hon. Gentleman because he wishes to curtail the activities of another place in relation to legislation. He started off by talking about amendments, and I would have thought that the whole country would agree that amendments which another place has made to legislation recently have been quite minor in character, with one exception. They have tended to improve the legislation. Only last week they ameliorated the tenancy provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman liked that, but that seemed to me to be a reasonable thing. The exception is the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. Here the other place voted to try to maintain one of the fundamental human rights—the right to belong, or not to belong, to a trade union. That is in the European Convention or Human Rights. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would concede that the other place is the protector of our constitution and human rights.
It seems extraordinary that we should have a committee of the Labour Party under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection studying how to bring in a Bill to preserve human rights and then popping into the Chamber and voting to take them away in respect of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. Would it not be better to leave the other place to protect our rights? Of course, the real crunch will come when

the party opposite tries to rig the rules. It tried to do this only a fortnight or so ago. We have seen it unable to accept the verdict and the vote of democracy.

We see that there is another committee of the party opposite—the Home Affairs Committee—studying how to
take the Queen out of politics
and how to take away her right to dissolve Parliament if the Government can no longer command a majority. Now we see the hon. Gentleman trying to take away the House of Lords, which is the only protection we have for free elections. If the Labour Party tried to abandon the five-year rule, there is only one safeguard that the people would have. It is not the right hon. Lady's charter of human rights; it is another place, which is the upholder of our constitution.

In due course the hon. Gentleman, whom we all admire so much, will grow more into the way of discretion and less into the way of valour. I cite to him the example of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who last week attended the Trooping the Colour—unheard of and unbelievable. He actually said he saw nothing wrong with it and that he had nothing to quarrel about.

All firebrands smoulder out. The hon. Gentleman would be wise not to divide the House against me on his Bill, because the time will come when he himself will be only too pleased to go along the corridor as Lord Clay Cross and take his £13·50 fee as well.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 168.

Division No. 184.]
AYES
3.59 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Buchan, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Ashton, Joe
Buchanan, Richard
Corbett, Robin


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Atkinson, Norman
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Canavan, Dennis
Crawford, Douglas


Bates, Alf
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Beith, A. J.
Carter, Ray
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cartwright, John
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Doig, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Clemitson, Ivor
Dormand, J. D.


Blenkinsop. Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dunn, James A.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cohen, Stanley
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Edge, Geoff


Brown. Hugh D. (Provan)
Concannon,J. D.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)




Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Madden, Max
Sandelson, Neville


English, Michael
Magee, Bryan
Sedgemore, Brian


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marquand, David
Silverman, Julius


Evans, John (Newton)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mendelson, John
Small, William


Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Molloy, William
Snape, Peter


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Moyle, Roland
Stallard, A. W.


George, Bruce
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Graham, Ted
Newens, Stanley
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Noble, Mike
Strang, Gavin


Grant, John (Islington C)
O'Halloran, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hatton, Frank
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Padley, Walter
Thompson, George


Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Henderson, Douglas
Pardoe, John
Tierney, Sydney


Hooley, Frank
Park, George
Tomlinson, John


Hooson, Emlyn
Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pavitt, Laurie
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Penhaligon, David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott, John
Ward, Michael


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Watkins, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkinson, John


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Radice, Giles
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Reid, George
White, James (Pollok)


Kaufman, Gerald
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wigley, Dafydd


Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey
Woodall, Alec


Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn
Young, David (Bolton E)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)



Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Litterick, Tom
Roper, John
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Loyden, Eddie
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Bruce Grocott.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Aitken, Jonathan
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Forman, Nigel
Lawson, Nigel


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Baker, Kenneth
Fox, Marcus
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Benyon, W.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lloyd, Ian


Berry, Hon Anthony
Freud, Clement
Luce, Richard


Biffen, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McCrindle, Robert


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
MacGregor, John


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brotherton, Michael
Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hall, Sir John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Carlisle, Mark
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Molyneaux, James


Churchill, W. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Higgins, Terence L.
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Holland, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Cockcroft, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cope, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cordle, John H.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neave, Airey


Corrie, John
Hurd, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neubert, Michael


Crouch, David
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Newton, Tony


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
James, David
Nott, John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Onslow, Cranley


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Drayson, Burnaby
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian


Durant, Tony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pink, R. Bonnet


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Mrs Jill
Prior, Rt Hon James


Fairgrieve, Russell
Knox, David
Raison, Timothy







Rathbone, Tim
Skeet, T. H. H.
Townsend, Cyril D.


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Speed, Keith
Wakeham, John


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Spence, John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Sproat, Iain
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Weatherill, Bernard


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stanley, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stokes, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Younger, Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)



Shersby, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silvester, Fred
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Nicholas Ridley and


Sims, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mr. Ian Gow.


Sinclair, Sir George

Question accordingly negatived.

NEW TOWNS (AMENDMENT) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transfer to district councils of dwellings and associated property of new town corporations, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of grants made by the Secretary of State to district councils for the purpose of relieving any financial burden imposed on them by schemes providing for such transfer.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I celebrate that notable victory for the constitution by asking the Minister to say a word or two about the Money Resolution. It appears to relate only to Clause 9 of the Bill, which is concerned with grants to district councils. It does not, apparently, relate to clause 8, the other financial clause, which has to do with the transfer of debt and subsidies from the corporations to the local authorities. Nor, apparently, does it refer to Clause 12, which relates to compensation for people who lose their jobs as a result of the transfer. Nor, apparently, does it relate either to Clause 13 or Clause 14, the first of which deals with the staff of the New Towns Staff Commission and the second of which increases the maximum number of members of development corporations, who will, I understand, receive a fee for their work.
Why does the Money Resolution relate only to Clause 9? If I remember rightly, the comparable resolution before the Committee stage went wider. Much more important, we are entitled to ask how much money is envisaged under the Money Resolution. The background to politics today is inevitably the size of public expenditure. I know that we cannot pin down the Minister to completely accurate figures, because that is impossible, but we are entitled to ask him to give us a notion of how much money we are talking about.
There is also the important question of how long the expenditure will continue. We sought to limit the period under which grants under Clause 9 can be paid because we were not keen on the notion of a blank cheque in perpetuity.
There is another oddity on which I should like some explanation. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which accompanied the Bill when it received a Second Reading states in paragraph 18:
The provision in Clause 9 for transitional grant will be offset by reductions in the amount payable to development corporations by way of grant under section 42(2) of the New Towns Act 1965.
It appears to say that money that is paid in the form of grants to local authorities when they take over housing schemes will be matched by a reduction in the grant from the central Government to the development corporations.
On the face of it, there seems to be no need to increase the amount of money made available. We are talking merely about transferring money from one programme to another. It may be that, under the principles of Government or Treasury regulations, that is not good enough and there has to be a separate authorisation, although there is an offsetting saving. Will the Minister say whether there will be a net increase in public expenditure as a result of Clause 9, or whether the money will simply go to local authorities instead of to the new town development corporations? It would be helpful to the House if the right hon. Gentleman would answer these significant points.

4.16 p.m.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): I remind the House that a Money Resolution was introduced before the Second Reading of the Bill which went far wider than Clause 9 although it included Clause 9. The Money Resolution that we are considering today does not totally take the place of the Money Resolution which was passed before Second Reading. It merely supplements it in one respect only, and that is Clause 9.
The reason is fairly simple. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) will recall that he moved an amendment to Clause 9, which was partly probing and partly more serious, on the subject of financing the transfer as between development corporations and district councils. He will also recall that my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman)


took his point and questioned the wording then in the Bill. The questioning crystallised around the phrase "undue burden".
I think, Mr. Speaker, that with your usual tolerance you might perhaps rule me slightly in order if I refer to Clause 9.

Mr. Speaker: I should not have noticed had the Minister not drawn my attention to it.

Mr. Silkin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To deal with Clause 9 and the Government amendment to Clause 9, it was necessary to widen the Money Resolution. In Committee, the Opposition moved an amendment and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow wished to move an amendment, which the Chairman ruled out of order because the Money Resolution was too tight. We have introduced a supplemental Money Resolution so that we may discuss the question of the financial burden that will arise under Clause 9. And in due course we shall consider the Government amendment and also Amendment No. 19 to be moved by the hon. Member for Aylesbury.

Mr. Leo Abse: There are considerable misgivings in Cwmbran New Town and in the Torfaen District Council, in which Cwmbran is situated, as to whether the funds are adequate to meet the cost of the transfer. Is the Minister making it unequivocally clear that sufficient funds from the State will be available to ensure that no undue burden passes to the Torfaen District Council on the transfer of housing from Cwmbran New Town?

Mr. Silkin: The difficulty is that the issues are fundamental to the two amendments of which I have spoken. The purpose of the Money Resolution is merely to allow us to discuss those amendments and, hopefully, to decide upon them. If as a result we were to say that the Money Resolution should not be passed, we would not be in a position to discuss the important matters raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury and which are probably out of order here but would be in order on the amendments which we shall discuss later.

Mr. Raison: I am not sure whether this discussion is out of order or in order. The Minister seems more inclined than Mr. Speaker to dispose our rules of order.
I shall be grateful if the Minister will refer to the two specific points I have raised. We are entitled to ask what sum of money is at stake. That is the point of a Money Resolution. I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on the Financial Memorandum on the original Bill, because it seemed to imply that there was no additional public spending but merely a transfer of spending from the new towns to the local authorities.

Mr. Speaker: Before the Minister replies, may I say that I understand that this discussion would be better and more in order if it were pursued when we come to Amendments Nos. 14 and 19. If the Money Resolution does not go through, we shall not be able to deal with those amendments. To that extent, this is also a paving Money Resolution.

Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditch): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to consider that the original Money Resolution extended further than Clause 9? My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) was asking questions relating to other clauses.

Mr. Speaker: That part is clear. The House has approved the original Money Resolution, and we are now discussing the one that is before us.

Mr. Raison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Amendment No. 19 reads:
leave out 'determined by him with the consent of the Treasury' and insert 'of seven years'.
It deals with the period of time during which grants can be paid. Would we risk being out of order if we widened the debate to discuss the topics I have raised?

Mr. Speaker: I do not want the debate to be widened now. I was suggesting that the hon. Gentleman will be able to pursue his arguments when we conic to Amendment No. 19. That is my suggestion, which I think is based on good advice.

Mr. Ian Cow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case


that the Money Resolution is fully debatable by the House and that the order of business is that before we can come to the consideration of the Bill we should consider the Money Resolution, upon which there can be a Division if the House so wishes? Will you confirm that it is in order to debate the resolution? The matter is important, and I understand that you are not seeking to restrict debate.

Mr. Speaker: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is correct. It is a debatable motion. The House has to make up its mind upon it.

Mr. Silkin: As I was saying about four points of order ago, this is really the opening of the sort of discussion which hon. Members want to hold and it is right that they should do so. I am sorry the hon. Member for Aylesbury seems to think that I am dictating the rules of order.
Years ago, when I was Deputy-Leader of the House, it was a common rule of order that when a Money Resolution had been passed by the House a supplementary resolution was introduced to allow an amendment to be discussed fully. That procedure enables the Bill to be changed.
It is extraordinary that hon. Members should wish to debate the matter that will give them that freedom. If they do not want that freedom and do not want to discuss it or to change the Bill, all I can say is that all those hours that we spent in Committee were in vain. The issue is better discussed on the amendments. It is not relevant to the supplementary Money Resolution, which enables us to discuss those amendments.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I find myself in respectful disagreement with the Minister when he implies that it would be better not to have a debate on the resolution at this stage.

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) misinterprets me. If hon. Members want a debate, by all means let us have it, but at least let it be on the right point. The point of the resolution is to allow debates on Amendments Nos. 14 and 19. That is all.

Mr. Gow: With respect to the Minister, may I say that the resolution authorises

the expenditure of sums of money which are not quantified? Does the right hon. Gentleman dissent from that proposition?

Mr. John Silkin: The resolution only authorises that if the House decides to approve either the amendment standing in my name or that in the name of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. Until we have examined those matters, we shall not know.

Mr. Gow: The Minister is prejudging the issue, because at this stage the only issue before the House is the Money Resolution. I support the pertinent observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). Without an assurance from the Minister about the sums of money that are involved, it is not right for the House to agree to the resolution.
It has been confirmed by Mr. Speaker that the resolution is debatable, and I have some questions for the Minister to which we should have answers before we discuss the Bill. Why is no financial limit mentioned in the resolution? Frequently, when we are debating a Money Resolution a limit is imposed. It is clear from the wording of Clause 9 that if the House agrees to the resolution we will hand over to the discretion of the Minister the payment of public money and the House will once again do something which it should be reluctant to do. If we agree to the resolution without any limit, we shall be surrendering to the Executive the control over public expenditure which should be exercised zealously by the House. I find it unconvincing that the Minister is not able to give an estimate of the payment which is envisaged under Clause 9.
Was the sum of money which is envisaged by the Minister under Clause 9 taken into account when the Budget estimates were presented to the House on 6th April and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the public sector borrowing requirement? It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this is not a matter which is of legitimate concern to the House. It should be of the greatest concern when the House is investing power to spend unlimited amounts of money without the Minister coming back for our approval.
I hope that before we agree or divide on the resolution the Minister will say


how much is involved and whether provision for this unspecified sum was taken into account by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I pressed my right hon. Friend so that I might obtain clarification, but his reply tended to obfuscate the issue rather than make the position clearer. That was no doubt due to my obtuseness and not to any lack of clarity on his part.
We should know a little more about the amount involved. I represent a constituency with a small local authority, Torfaen, and a large new town, Cwmbran, which is likely to expand considerably. There is a possibility that the housing assets of that substantial new town can be transferred to the local authority. It is, naturally, a matter of deep concern to all my constituents that my right hon. Friend should ensure that the sum he receives is large enough to avoid any burden falling upon the ratepayers when they assimilate the housing assets of the new town.
The relevance of that to the debate is that there is the possibility that the Minister will have discretion as to whether he gives monetary relief to the local authority when it takes over the assets. The Bill makes it clear not only that he may ensure that sufficient funds are distributed but that he may do it wholly or in part. If that is so, we are discussing the very substance of the matter when we talk about how much money he will have.
What hope have my constituents that their anxieties will be relieved when we take over the formidable task of administering this vast amount of housing? I express my unease on their behalf and hope that we may have some assurance that the funds being asked for will be adequate to enable my right hon. Friend not to feel that he is boxed in at any time in assisting the Torfaen District Council to take over the assets. The council very much desires to exercise democratic control. My constituents have been urging over many years, through me, that the new town should come under the control not of a development corporation but of a duly-elected local authority which would be able to

administer the housing within its own area.
Does the resolution enable my right hon. Friend to be satisfied that he will not feel inhibited? If he is inhibited, I can well understand that my local authority, like many other local authorities, would draw back from taking over the housing.
The importance of making certain that sufficient funds are being voted is reinforced by the fact that there are within the Bill residual powers for the Minister to dragoon local authorities into taking over housing assets which could be a heavy financial responsibility. When ratepayers in all areas are sensitive to increases in expenditure, it is important that we should take no action which could add to the burdens of the ratepayers, anxious as they may be to assume their democratic responsibilities of administering the houses in the area.
Therefore, I trust that my right hon. Friend, who will know the anxieties that there can be in a South Wales valley over such issues, will give us an indication that he is satisfied that he will not be inhibited by a shortage of funds from ensuring that a transfer of housing assets will not mean new and heavy burdens for the ratepayers and their elected representatives who will be receiving those assets.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: It might be for the convenience of the House if the Minister assisted us once more by explaining that this Money Resolution is supplementary to that which was passed earlier.

Mr. John Silkin: That is exactly what I said 20 minutes ago.

Mr. Miller: I was trying to have it confirmed, because it seemed to me that some hon. Members had not appreciated that the resolution is to enable us later to discuss Amendments Nos. 14 and 19 but that the sums involved have already been passed on a Money Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman might explain exactly what those sums were. We have had no figures mentioned, nor has the right hon. Gentleman answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) about the extra costs for the New Towns Staff


Commission and the other matters mentioned in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. That would help many hon. Members to realise exactly what is involved.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. John Cope: It might help some hon. Members, but not me, because the point I wish to raise is directly related to the Money Resolution and I think that it would be out of order to raise it on Amendment No. 14 or Amendment No. 19.
I should like first to take up the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) when he said that the House would have no further opportunity to approve or otherwise any sums which might be paid out under the Money Resolution. I understand that that is not strictly so. As the years go by, the House will have the opportunity year by year to approve the Estimates in which the sums involved in the clauses in question and permitted by the Money Resolution will appear.
It is true that the House has got into the habit of not looking very closely at most of the Estimates. It is an exaggeration to say that the Estimates procedure has fallen into disuse, but it is no longer a very severe brake on the spending of the Administration, either in total or a small figure such as this. Nevertheless, further opportunities of returning to this point will offer themselves over the years.

Mr. Gow: It is clear from Clause 9 that
the Secretary of State … may … make grants to the council"—
the council concerned—
of amounts and for a period determined by him with the consent of the Treasury".
Therefore, all that has to happen if we pass the resolution is for the Secretary of State to agree with the Treasury and, lo and behold, the House is presented with a fait accompli, subject only, as my hon. Friend points out, to an annual debate on the totality of Government spending which has become so massive that we need to be very jealous of our duty to the people to be zealous about scrutinising the right hon. Gentleman's expenditure.

Mr. Cope: My hon. Friend is quite right de facto, but I think that I am correct de jure. Since he is a lawyer and I am not, that gives me a little pleasure.
The point I wish to make concerns the difference between the wording of the Money Resolution and the wording of Amendment No. 14. The Bill originally said that the Government would pay by grant for "an undue financial burden". The amendment suggests that the Government will meet by grant "a financial burden", omitting the word "undue". But the Money Resolution proposes to relieve "any financial burden". Therefore, there is a difference not only between the amendment and the Bill as it stands but also between the amendment and the Money Resolution.
Let us in this context take the analogy of a horse. An undue burden placed on a horse is such a burden as will cause the horse to collapse immediately or very shortly after the burden is imposed or as will wear out the horse. A burden placed on a horse is a normal burden which it is able to carry for a good time, such as a man or equipment. But "any burden" placed on a horse implies almost anything from a piece of straw upwards.
Therefore, if the amendment is carried and the Bill goes through as amended, the Secretary of State will be able to relieve any burden imposed on a local authority, such as that represented by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), if the burden is difficult for the local authority to bear. On the other hand, if the wording in the Money Resolution is followed, any costs of any kind will be covered if they are incurred as a result of the transfer between the new town and the local authority.
It seems to me that there are a number of areas of cost to be considered. There is the area of highest cost as represented by the Money Resolution, for which we have had no figure or even what the Americans call a "ball park" figure. We have not even had from the Government a wild guess at the kind of figure with which we are dealing in the Money Resolution, nor, so far as I am aware, have we had any estimate of what the amendment might cost. When at a later stage we discuss the relevant amendment, no doubt, it will be in order for the Minister to give us that information. It


might not be in order for him to give the first figure, but so far as I know we have had no estimate of the cost of the Bill as it stands. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider these matters before we pass the resolution.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Since we are having a wider-than-normal debate on the Money Resolution, I should like to ask the Minister a question which in normal circumstances I would ask him when we dealt with the amendments.
As I understand the situation, the purpose of the Money Resolution is to remove the word "undue" from the provision related to the relief of financial burden in respect of district councils. I was not a member of the Committee, but I am delighted that the Money Resolution has been amended in that way. I hope it means that the Department has been good enough to consider the short speech which I made on Second Reading, when I mentioned the second-generation towns and the effect of the provisions on constituencies such as mine.
In that debate I mentioned the increased burden for the ratepayers in regard to the transfer of assets relating to Runcorn New Town. That transfer would have involved an increase of 9p on the rates. Will the Minister confirm whether the amended money resolution will enable the Government to look in the widest possible terms at the financial burden on local authorities which take over second-generation new towns where houses have recently been built at high interest rates and where they are taking over liabilities rather than taking over, as it were, a large amount of rating income, as happens in some of the older generation of new towns?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: It is always the penalty in this House, when one is generous to an Opposition and says "We shall take into account what you have said and try to meet you", that sooner or later they will come along in another form and use their best endeavours to prevent altruistic and generous ministerial suggestions being put into effect.
This is the situation that arose following Committee stage. The hon. and

learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) made an effective speech on Second Reading and voiced the fears of which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) might have been aware had he been present for that debate. Indeed, the point was underlined by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The matter was also raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris).
The difficulty that faced us was that the House had already passed a Money Resolution and indeed it appears that Opposition Members are now threatening to take advantage of my altruistic motives. If they want to go into the Division Lobby against their own Front Bench, no doubt they will do so. I must tell them, however, that I regarded this as a fair point which I thought should be examined and remedied.
It was impossible in the circumstances in Committee to introduce an amendment to exclude the word "undue", and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn and my hon. and unlearned Friend the Member for Pontypool will understand the point. [Interruption.] Yes, my hon. and "unlearned" Friend, who will know that I am unlearned, too. I thought that it was difficult to allay legitimate fears on both sides of the House without altering the Money Resolution. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) got the point 20 minutes after I had made it. We are saying that we cannot discuss this matter unless we have a slightly different Money Resolution that will enable us to deal with amendments Nos. 14 and 19.
There are some points which I can perhaps dispose of at this point in the proceedings. I do so on the strict understanding that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) will not raise them again unless he is dissatisfied with my answer. The hon. Member asked about the number of staff required. How can I say how much compensation will be paid to staff? That is the reason for having a staff commission—namely, so that it may ascertain those matters.
I was also asked how much money was to be paid to the staff commission in terms of fees. My reply is that we do not


know on how many occasions it will meet. The members of the commission are paid a daily rate. Brilliant though my powers of prophecy may be, they are not as brilliant as that. Therefore, I cannot predict on how many occasions the commission will meet.
I was also asked what would be the relevant financial arrangements between the development corporation and the district council at the moment of transfer, looking at the situation today. Of course, we cannot give that information.
I have done my best to meet those hon. Members who do not like the word "undue". Indeed, I explained on another occasion to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) that I could not understand what a "due burden" was. I said that it was one of the things we would be looking at. In order to do that, we need a supplementary Money Resolution. That is all there is to it.
If the House wished to divide and the Opposition were to win the Division, the only effect would be that the amendments—which, after due consideration, we have introduced in order to be of assistance—would be out of order.

Mr. Raison: Will the Minister answer a point which I put to him twice, which seems to me to be entirely relevant to the Money Resolution and not particularly relevant, in a sense, to the amendments? In the Financial Memorandum on the Bill as it was at Second Reading, it was stated that:
The provision in Clause 9 for transitional grant will be offset by reductions in the amount payable to development corporations by way of grant under Section 42(2) of the New Towns Act 1965".
In other words, it appeared to say that there would not be a need for any extra public money. Can we have confirmation whether this is so? If it is so, can we be told why we need a Money Resolution? This is entirely germane to this debate.

Mr. Silkin: It is also germane, when one thinks of it, to the original Money Resolution, on which it was not raised. Of course, when transfer takes place the grant will go down to the development corporation because the houses will be transferred. There may be cases where, those houses having been transferred to the district council—it will not happen in every case—the district council might be put to financial hardship. That is what all the debates in Committee were about.
I dare not risk being ruled out of order by talking at this stage about the excellent Amendment No. 14 in my name, but if that excellent amendment were to be passed—or even were it not to be passed—the Secretary of State could, with the consent of the Treasury, say that such and such a district council would suffer from financial hardship as a result of a transfer. It might or might not happen, but if it did he could say "Let us have a look at it and see whether we can do something to help".
The hon. Member for Aylesbury has a somewhat rigid mind on these things and may be able to think of some rigid wording. If he can think of some rigid wording to meet that case in the 29 or so new towns which have been created over a period of perhaps 50 years, he has mistaken his vocation and should be a parliamentary draftsman.

Mr. Gow: Is the Minister really telling the House that neither he nor his Department can make any estimate at all of the amount of money which will be required under this transfer, either during this financial year or next? Is he asking for a blank cheque?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transfer to district councils of dwellings and associated property of new town corporations, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of grants made by the Secretary of State to district councils for the purpose of relieving any financial burden imposed on them by schemes providing for such transfer.

Orders of the Day — NEW TOWNS (AMENDMENT) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 1

COUNTY COUNCILS TO BE INFORMED OF PROPOSED TRANSFER SCHEMES

'A new town corporation and any district council to whom directions have been given under section 3 above to make a transfer scheme shall, before submitting it to the Secretary of State under section 4 below,—

(a) inform the council of each county in which there is any land proposed to be transferred by, or to be the subject of management arrangements included in, the scheme, or there is any part of the area of the new town, what that land is, and
(b) give each such county council a reasonable opportunity of commenting on the proposed scheme.'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) will recall that during our Committee discussions he asked us to consider amending the Bill to ensure that county councils' views are sought during the preparation of transfer schemes. I think he accepted that the amendment that he put down in Committee, with the objective of doing this, gave greater power to the county councils than was justified. At any rate, he withdrew his amendment on my assurance that we would consider whether we could write into the Bill a guarantee of consultation for the county councils.
The proposed new clause does this. I think that all hon. Members who served on the Committee will agree that at that time we had a very useful discussion on the involvement of the county councils. They are not directly involved in the transfer of housing, but could have an interest in some of the housing-related assets—for example, local meeting halls, which may be the subject of joint use

schemes to which a county council has contributed financially, or open spaces in which the new town corporation may have accorded the county council, as local education authority, user rights for schools. We therefore think it right to provide for the parties to the scheme to consult the county councils and give them an opportunity to comment on it.
I hope that the House will welcome the new clause, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Michael Morris: We must heartily welcome the clause. It is, very much as the Under-Secretary has said, a direct response to an Opposition initiative and fulfils an undertaking that the Under-Secretary gave to the Committee.
As the Under-Secretary said, there are two aspects involved. First, I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber believe that the counties had a right to be consulted. Secondly, we felt at the time that we should air the thought that counties should have the right to initiate a scheme. After listening to the Government in debate, we withdrew the suggestion about giving a right to initiate a discussion. It is a marginal decision, but on balance we accept it.
I should like to make one or two observations on the clause and ask the Minister one or two short questions of a specific nature. I am sure it is right, from the counties' point of view, to give them the status of a new clause. They are a major tier of local government and deserve quite specifically to be given individual consideration.
Politicians from both sides of the House and, indeed, from all over the country, have for some years paid lip-service to consultation. In some places it works extremely well, but there are areas of local government in which it does not work; in fact, it would be putting none too fine a point on it to say that it is still disastrous. I believe it is correct that we in the House should spell out in no uncertain terms that there is a statutory right of consultation. I hope that this precedent will be followed in any future Bills dealing with this sort of area.
The importance of consultation is such that it is not just a matter of saying that


it should happen and that people should be "in the know". It is imperative, because of the implications to the counties. The Minister has just mentioned the implications in regard to shared meeting halls, and the like. There are, however, a number of quasi-housing functions in which the counties are involved, and therefore it is directly relevant.
First, in this connection, there is the existing confused situation concerning the homeless. In the counties there is considerable overlap and variation between the social services departments and the district housing authorities. In some cases the counties are almost 100 per cent. responsible. In certain other areas the districts are now 100 per cent. responsible.
We have all seen the unhappy circumstances of the case that was highlighted in Sussex. This suggests that there is still considerable room for county council involvement in the problem of homeless families.
Then there is the question of the handicapped. Mr. Deputy Speaker has rightly chosen not to debate new Clause 4, as it falls outside the province of the Bill, but the handicapped are involved in the housing aspect.
Next, there is the need for the counties to provide a safeguard, or, as it were, a watchdog for industry in relation to key workers. There is the question of closely watching the future nomination rights. This is dealt with in the Bill. In regard to the process of the structure plan and its relationship with the economic planning councils, we are very much concerned with the interests of industry, and it is right that they should be involved.
Then there is the point that the Minister has made several times in this Chamber about the role of the new towns in taking on their responsibilities for the socially disadvantaged and the old. I have made it clear that I have had problems about his request for them to take over the socially disadvantaged, because, on the whole, the facilities in new towns are not as good as those in the inner urban areas and, therefore, the services given are not up to standard.
5.0 p.m.
In the case of the old, there is a specific housing rôle. It is the situation, thankfully, that some older people are now moving out. It is also the situation that, on a transfer, a county may have inadequate resources for housing the old and that if a transfer scheme is being made, representations may be made to the development corporation to build in some extra provision for old people prior to transfer or immediately afterwards. This is a growing problem, which will have to be looked at carefully.
Also on the quasi-housing function, there is the problem of different housing policies between different district councils, and their harmonisation. It is far better that the Minister should know that there is harmony at local level before he has to decide.
The counties are not strictly excluded from the housing function. As the Minister said in Committee, however, they are involved with roads, the provision of education and infrastructure, and I cannot let this opportunity go without making my perennial plea to the Minister that the rate support grant should anticipate population increases to help in education.
I want briefly to touch on two other aspects. The first is the planning process. At the moment, we have a mixed planning process, in the sense that the county is responsible for the strategic structure plan, which is fundamental to the development of the county and, therefore, has a real rôle in this area. I think that, over a period, we shall see the economic planning councils becoming much more involved in their relationship with the counties and then through to the districts. The point at which their activities begin to impinge fundamentally is in the new towns, because that is where new industry is coming in and where the planning councils' views have to be built in in relation to transfer schemes.
Then there are the financial implications. We spent a little time on them just now, but we shall have to look at them in greater detail when we reach Clause 9. That will be the appropriate time for that. They suggest that the counties, because of the heavy financial burden, should have a say.
I have spent a little time welcoming the clause and re-emphasising the reasons why we think that the counties should be involved. I am conscious that, in Committee, a number of Government supporters had reservations. One of them has a long history of valuable service to local government, and he probably reflects part of the historical antipathy between county and town. I think that we all hope that that antipathy is disappearing and that the two can work together in harmony.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions by way of clarification. In the clause, we see the word "land". I should like to know the significance of that word. Is it thought that "land" covers all housing plus the under-developed land associated with a transfer of housing? I raise this because, in my experience, there are situations in the inner urban areas where housing is provided on top of commercial or industrial premises—more often, commercial premises—which in the case of a new town would continue to be held by the new towns commission. I do not know of specific examples in the new towns, and certainly there are none in Northampton, but in theory there could be a situation in which housing was transferred but the freehold of the land or the ownership of the land remained with the new towns commission, simply because the basic ground-level facility was a commercial one.
Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about how he sees the procedures of consultation working? It seems to me that there are two ways of going about it. First, presumably the Minister will send out his directions, the transfer scheme will be produced, it will go to the county in a final form, the county will be asked to make its comments, and the whole lot will come to the Minister in that form. The second possibility is that there will be a joint working party or possibly a draft report prepared by the relevant district and new town corporation, they will meet the county or counties concerned, and a composite report will be sent to the Minister for him to view. It will help to have some idea how he sees this working in practice.
Let me say once again how much we welcome the Government's response to

this initiative. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the two basic questions that I have put to In any event, we believe that the clause is a significance addition to the Bill.

Mr. W. Benyon: I did not have the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, but I extend a warm welcome to this clause. I know that it will be welcomed by the Association of County Councils, not least by my own county council in Buckinghamshire.
I have the advantage of sharing with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) the same county council, and we both know the very close association that has grown up in planning matters, in this case, during the course of the construction of the new city. It would be tactless of me to mention the precedent of the land acquisition and management schemes existing in another piece of legislation recently passed through this House, but it illustrates the great difficulty that arises when there is the potential of dual responsibility. The fact that at least the relevant county council will be consulted when a transfer takes place, so that it may comment on the planning aspects, will be extremely beneficial.
For that reason, I welcome the clause and congratulate the Government on introducing it.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am glad that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) is pleased with the clause. In his welcome he spoke of the feeling that he had that we ought to have statutory consultation wherever we thought there was a case for it. I emphasise that, since it was because we saw ways in which county councils would be actively concerned in transfers and, therefore, would have interests which needed to be discussed that we decided to accept the arguments advanced in Committee and to introduce the clause.
However, when I hear the hon. Member for Northampton, South and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) urging the need for consultation, I am conscious that it is rather like teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, because one of the important contributions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends has


been the increase that they have brought about in the amount of consultation between my Department and local authorities and between the two tiers of local authorities. I am sure that we all agree with this. That is why we are so concerned to see the clause added to the Bill.
I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance that in every piece of future legislation that we bring forward consultation will be a feature, which seems to be rather what the Opposition want, I think that we would want, without giving any assurance at all, to see consultation take place where it was clearly likely that the interests of the other parties would be involved. I was glad that the hon. Member for Northampton, South raised the question of key workers and the relationship between that issue and the needs of industry in the drawing up of the structure plan.
He asked me whether the word "land" in the new clause included housing. The answer is "Yes". He also asked how I saw it happening. I honestly do not know, but I hope that, now that this is a statutory requirement, whatever happens, any sensibly drawn-up transfer scheme will involve consultation all the way along with the county council to keep it informed of the way in which things are developing. Once a draft scheme has been drawn up between the new town corporation and the local authority I hope that it will be submitted to the county council for it to make any observations, and that the scheme can be altered or adapted in any way thought necessary to accommodate any points that the council might raise. Now that a statutory requirement is being proposed as part of the Bill, and is welcomed by the Opposition, I am sure that the requirement will be fulfilled in a number of ways.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 3

SALE OF NEW TOWN HOUSES

"(1) A scheme shall include the statutory right for a tenant of the Commission for the new towns and development corporations to

purchase the dwelling providing he has been resident in a new town dwelling for at least three years.

(2) The sale of new town houses shall be at 20 per cent. below the current market value with vacant possession, provided that this would not be below cost; and a further 1 per cent. beyond the three years shall be allowed for each year of tenancy in the new town up to a maximum of 30 years".—[Mr. Raison.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I make no apology for returning to the subject of the sale of new town houses in this new clause. We tabled an amendment on the Second Reading of the Bill designed to promote the sale of new town houses, and we also put forward an amendment to Clause 3 in Committee, and we had a Supply Day debate on this subject recently. We believe it is part of a policy proposal of fundamental importance to establish the right for council house tenants and new town house tenants to buy the houses if they are sitting tenants. This new clause, which is designed to that end, has to be related to the Bill and to come within the scope of the Long Title of the Bill, and the way we thought most appropriate of putting it forward was to see it as part of the scheme for transfer.
In Committee we took another course of action on this proposal. The way we envisaged it then was criticised by the Minister because it was technically imperfect, although I suspect he found it unacceptable in other ways as well. Now we believe that the right way to do it is to include it as part of a scheme under which a transfer takes place. Therefore, we have not felt it necessary to spell out all the details embodied in this process.
I had thought that we might do it first of all in Regulations, but there is no need for separate Regulations, because the procedure of a scheme, which is the heart and essence of the Bill, enables the Minister to set out the process by which the sale of new town houses would take place. This means that we have not filled in all the details of our approach, but I shall explain the kind of conditions that I think it likely that the Minister would include in a scheme to enable the sale to take place.
5.15 p.m.
I think it is very likely that a scheme would include the right of the local authority, as it will become after the scheme is implemented, to pre-empt these houses. If a person who has bought his house decides within five years that he wishes to sell it rather than remain in it, the local authority should have the right of pre-emption, which is a familiar part of the present system for selling new town and council houses.
A scheme would probably impose conditions that would provide that the sale should not take place at a price below the orginal cost of the house. That, also, is familiar in the present system.
It is also desirable that a scheme should set out the actual procedure by which an applicant would state his intention to buy, and confirm that intention. When we are talking about a transfer scheme of this kind, we have not got an unlimited period of time. With council housing one can establish a right to buy, and that right can be exercised at any subsequent time, but in the circumstances in which the duration of a scheme is laid down a would-be purchaser has a certain period in which to state his intention and some limits to the time in which that intention can actually be fulfilled.
I would hope that a scheme would set out helpful details about the process of conveyancing. One of the things that need to be encouraged and introduced is a much easier conveyancing system for those people who wish to buy their houses. Some kind of standard form should be implemented as part of national policy. We could make a start here.

Mr. Stanley Newens: I am most interested in this point. Is the hon. Member saying that he would support the idea that we put forward, of local authorities being able to give this service to people? Is he sympathetic to the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch)?

Mr. Raison: No, I cannot be totally sympathetic to the ideas of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). I dare not give too much offence to the solicitor's profession, as I have so many distinguished solicitors sitting opposite me, but I believe that we should think about these

details, and ways of making the job easier. I have no desire to do solicitors out of work, but I think we could find a scheme to simplify the process.
We should also consider the period in which the purchaser has to buy the house, because we have to remain within the terms of the Bill. It may well be that a scheme says something about the conditions governing the supply of mortgage money for the would-be purchaser. It should be made clear that although the tenant should have a right to buy, it does not follow that the mortgage money must be made available to him, if he has not the financial standing to justify his receiving a mortgage. No one could argue that the local authority should be put in a position where it had to provide a mortgage for someone who would not be able to sustain the payments resulting from it.
We would also expect a scheme of this kind to state the sort of exemptions that would apply. It is not part of our case to say that every conceivable kind of new town or council house should be sold. It might well be sensible to exempt from the right to buy, those houses which are specially built for the disabled, the old, and other similar categories. By and large, it would be less likely that the tenants of that sort of housing would want to buy. The older tenants would probably be unable to undertake the purchase. We would accept as a legitimate matter for discussion and decision exactly what categories might be excluded from this general right, which we are so keen to establish. All these details are of great importance, and I hope that the general debate about the sale of public housing can move on increasingly to these specific details, since I believe that the general principle is becoming more and more widely accepted. The clause seeks to establish this principle.
We pressed this general policy hard on Second Reading, in the local elections on 28th April, in Committee on the Bill, and again in the House on 18th May. On that last occasion the Minister gave some ground. The debate followed a certain amount of discussion in the Press on whether the Prime Minister had intervened in the general question. The Daily Express suggested that he had taken


a very strong line and had told Ministers to get on with the job of selling council houses. I think that there was a good deal in what the Daily Express said—

Mr. Robin Corbett: There is an unreliable source.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Member speaks for the NUJ, but he is showing unbrotherly love towards the Daily Express.
Perhaps I may read a short extract from the Minister's speech. He said, in talking about the sale of new town houses
I shall discuss with the New Town chairmen the arrangements for looking at the situation in each New Town individually. If in any New Town the average waiting period for those eligible for a New Town rented house is less than three months if the development corporation wished, we could, subject to proper consultations, start resuming sales. We would, of course, need to establish what conditions might be applied to such sales. For example, there might be a case for limiting them to tenants who had lived in a corporation dwelling for not less than, say, five years or some such period, and I shall be interested to learn the views of the New Town chairmen.
It will also be important to monitor the sales policy regularly so that we do not find ourselves again in the situation which I inherited from the Conservatives, with swollen waiting lists and lengthening waiting periods. Every quarter, therefore, we would look at each town individually to see whether, in the light of any changes in the average waiting period, sales ought to be slowed down for the time being—or resumed—or whether we should continue as before."—[Official Report, 18th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 1246.]
We welcome that small amount of movement by the Minister. It is a change, after the obduracy of the last two years. No doubt he took some notice of the results of the district elections in the new town areas. In that speech the Minister repeated a fallacy that we have heard before and which it is important to nail. It is that the sale of new town houses has had a significant effect on the length of waiting lists. The Government claim that our policy of sale over the period when we were in office caused longer waiting lists, and that their ban on sales has caused a shortening of waiting lists. But how could sales have affected more than a very small number? How many of the houses sold over the three years would have been relet other than to the existing owners if the houses had not been sold? The Minister must answer that point.
What are the facts? They are hard to come by, but I understand that the Department of the Environment says that there were 4·4 per cent. of relets in new towns in 1975–76. That is the scale of reletting that takes place. In 1972, 15,603 new town houses were sold, and 4·4 per cent of that figure is 686. In 1973, 7,254 houses were sold, and 4·4 per cent. of that is 319. It is clear that a drop of this size in the number of relets would not dramatically affect waiting lists in the manner that the Minister suggested. In any case, relets are provided from people who have just died, and, generally, elderly people will not buy their own homes. They are also provided from people who are moving, and that category, too, will also generally not buy. Thus the figures considerably overstate the impact of relets on sales. Those who buy and subsequently sell might well not have moved if they had not had a capital asset to realise.

Mr. Corbett: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear to us that he is saying that he believes in the right to purchase, irrespective of the length of the waiting list in the new town or the district council area? Es he saying that these other factors should be disregarded?

Mr. Raison: I am saying that I believe the waiting list argument to be fallacious, and the reasons I have put forward demonstrate that to be so. We have said repeatedly that we are talking about selling to sitting tenants, and, by and large those tenants will remain in their houses whether they buy them or continue to rent them. Therefore, no more than a very small percentage of the houses can be "lost" to other would-be tenants.
The Government argue that their policy has lowered waiting lists in the new towns. Of course, that is not true and the Government know it perfectly well. What has affected waiting lists has been the naturally continuing amount of building that has gone on. But the real reason why waiting lists have fallen in so many of the new towns has been the collapse of the economy under the Labour Government. The fact is that there are not the jobs available in the new towns. People are not moving to them, because they cannot find work when they get


there. That shows the fallacy of the Government's argument. I hope that today the Minister will take time to come clean and tell the truth about this.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us more about one or two of the other things that he said on 18th May. Perhaps he will explain when the process will start again. He said that it was under review, but when does he actually expect the sale of new town houses to be resumed? Will he give us the terms upon which new town house sales will be based? Will they continue under the Regulations that we provided while we were in power, or does he intend to change them? Will he say something about how he sees the financing of new town sales taking place? Obviously they will require mortgages. Will the money come from the public sector, or is the right hon. Gentleman looking to the building societies to provide it? Or will it be a mixture of both? The building societies, through their association, have declared themselves to be generally in favour of the sale of public housing. We welcome that, and I have no doubt that the societies will play their part in making sales possible. Equally, however, it would no doubt be easier to push ahead with this programme if there were some possibility of public mortgage money coming in.
I was interested to read, in the Minister's speech on 18th May, the statement that sales would provide capital receipts for the development corporations. Those, in turn, will help to finance further investment for the needs of the disadvantaged from the inner cities.
5.30 p.m.
That makes the point that, as I understand it, there is a real public expenditure gain from the sale of new town houses. There has been some argument about the extent of the gain, but the Minister has quite clearly put it on record that there is a public expenditure gain from the public sale of such houses. I do not think that he can contradict that that is what he was saying, but no doubt he will deal with the point.
The size of the public expenditure gain will vary, depending on whether public money is used to finance the mortgages. That is a matter of common sense. If

the funds to buy are provided by the building societies, there is clearly a substantial public expenditure gain. If they come out of loans from Government funds the gain will be less, although I believe it will still be real.
The important point that the Minister made, with which I sympathise, is the notion that the additional money should be used to go to the help of those from the inner cities. One of the criticisms that we make about the present system of running the finances of new towns is that it does not maximise the returns. We tabled an amendment—I am not surprised that it has not been selected, as perhaps it was seeking to stretch the Long Title a little too much—which put forward the view that it should be possible to sell the freeholds of commercial and industrial sites. We were not trying to suggest that they should always be sold—merely that those who run the new towns should be in a position to make a judgment as to the most prudent way of using the vast resources that are locked up in the new towns with a view to trying to help the public expenditure situation.
I should be happy to think that one of the ways in which the new towns could make a positive contribution to those in the inner cities would be by releasing more resources—in other words, putting it crudely, making more money—and directing them, for example, to help with the vast problems of Dockland and inner Liverpool.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us how he sees the additional help for the inner cities coming into being. Is it that the sale of houses will provide money that will be used for that purpose? Is it that the money that is raised will somehow be transferred into the inner cities? Will the money that is raised and which will go to the development corporations be used to build new houses within the corporations, which will be made available for those in the inner cities? Perhaps the Minister will tell us a little more about what he meant by his remarks in column 1246 of the Official Report.
The objectives of the new clause are fairly clear. First, we believe that it is socially and economically desirable to do all that we can to encourage the possibility of home ownership for the less


prosperous members of society. This is a very good way of doing it. Secondly, we see great merit in the possibility of allowing people to move into home ownership without even having to move. Surely that is one of the strongest advantages to be found in the sale of both council housing and new town housing. Thirdly—this is a particularly important point, on which my hon. Friends who represent new towns may care to comment—we need to get away from the excessively monolithic pattern of public ownership that exists in the new towns and achieve a more varied form of tenure.
The pattern in the older new towns is especially unbalanced. I understand that in Harlow about 20 of every 100 new town houses are in owner-occupation, the rest being rented. I believe that there is a similar imbalance at Hemel Hempstead. The figures for Hemel Hempstead indicate that only one of every six new town houses is owner-occupied. If we move to the north of England, to Peterlee, there are 908 owner-occupied new town houses as against 6,500 rented houses. That must represent a very unsatisfactory form of community.
As we recalled in Committee, it was the objective of the late Richard Crossman to achieve a 50–50 balance between owner-occupation and rental in the new towns. I believe that the pattern in Milton Keynes is about 25–75 between owner-occupied and publicly owned houses. Labour Members, who, by and large, are owner-occupiers, must recognise that the existing pattern cannot be right and that it is perverse not to do all that we can to make use of the mechanism of selling new town houses to bring about a changed relationship.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have always argued, owner-occupation gives people a stake in the community and a feeling of independence. It encourages them to devote their own resources and energy to improving and maintaining their houses. That must be all to the good. In short, it adds to the general sum of human happiness. We have campaigned on those lines, and there is no doubt about the response to our campaign. As I believe many Socialists now recognise with a feeling of unease, it has produced an enormous demand for the right to buy the house that one occupies as a tenant. We believe strongly

in this policy. We believe that we should move towards a positive right to buy. Indeed, that is a right that the new clause embodies.
That does not mean that all the housing in the new towns, or anything like it, will be sold, any more than all the council housing, or anything like it, will be sold. We still need a public stock of council and new town housing. I do not dispute that need. However, we want to take this opportunity to allow people the chance of owner-occupation. It seems that that is a concept that all the arguments support. We want to move away from the situation that now applies in the new towns—namely, that an individual's chance to buy his house is ultimately dependent on the whims of Ministers.
I take this opportunity to dispose of one other argument. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) asked why there should be a discount price as against the market price in the sale of new town housing, and presumably council housing. The hon. Gentleman raised that matter in Committee and my hon. Friends and I tried to answer it. We said that it is generally the case that if a sitting tenant has the opportunity to buy he expects a discount.
I derive encouragement from the fact that the Under-Secretary of State who deals with housing reiterated that approach in a recent Adjournment debate. The Secretary of State appeared to reiterate it in an answer that he gave at Question Time when environment Questions were last taken. It seems that it is a sound and sensible principle that if one sells to a sitting tenant there should be a discount or a reduction in the market price. Quite apart from that, and as I have said repeatedly, we believe this to be a socially desirable policy and that we should make it easier to bring it about.
The scheme that the Minister has to endorse when the transfer of housing assets takes place will set out the full details. Essentially, because of the terms of the Bill that relates to sale during the actual process of transfer. In other words, we are talking about a sale that will take place with the development corporation or the commission as the vendor, the local authorities not coming into the matter. We are not trying—merely


because we think it would be out of order—to bind local authorities after the stage when transfer has taken place, although that is something we should like to see.
We have set out the conditions that we think important—for example, that a person must have occupied a new town dwelling for three years. We provide for a 20 per cent. discount, and we have introduced the notion that for each year beyond the three years there should be an additional 1 per cent. discount. That seems to be wholly advantageous. It would recoup the tenant for the long period of paying in that he will have experienced.
The new clause recognises that this is a real chance to push forward the whole notion of home ownership. Our package is fair and moderate. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept it.

Mr. Newens: I wish to speak against the new clause. It is preposterous that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) should suggest that new towns such as Harlow are unsatisfactory communities because of the present balance between owner-occupiers and tenants. Harlow, far from being an unsatisfactory community, in many respects gives much greater satisfaction to the people living there than do communities where the balance is different.
One factor that has contributed to that situation in Harlow is that young people have not had to wait inordinately lengthy periods to be allocated houses. The rejection of the new clause would in this respect add to the sum total of human happiness in communities such as Harlow, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
New towns were built primarily to provide homes for those in need—people in old-established towns who could not be provided for within the confines of those towns. The London satellite towns, of which Harlow is one, were built to provide for the population of London.
The new towns were not intended to provide opportunities for people to become owner-occupiers. Therefore, the question whether houses are rented or purchased must be secondary to the fulfilment of the housing need. I hope that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition

Benches will be prepared to comment on that matter at some stage. Do they regard the fulfilment of the housing need as secondary or primary in this respect?
For some years many people in need of housing have been unable to buy houses because they have been unable to raise the necessary deposit or their income levels have been inadequate to meet the mortgage repayment requirements of building societies or local authorities. For such people the only hope of a home depends upon the offer of a tenancy, normally by a local authority, but, for those eligible to go to new towns, by a new town corporation or the commission.
The sale of corporation or council houses to sitting tenants must diminish the offers of tenancies that can be made to people in need. After all, a local authority or new town corporation can provide tenancies only from the building of new houses and houses that become available for reletting. Therefore the selling of houses that form part of the pool of rented housing stock must reduce the total number of houses that become available for reletting and the number of tenancies that can be offered.
5.45 p.m.
The sale of houses must inevitably lengthen waiting lists for second generation applicants, essential workers coming into new towns, and other applicants for houses in new towns. The hon. Member for Aylesbury quoted the figure of 4·4 per cent. I suggest that in principle he has conceded the point that to some extent the sales of council houses have affected waiting lists. I accept that to some extent the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the drop in the demand for houses in new towns has been affected by the present economic climate. But when the economic climate picks up again and more jobs are available in new towns, inevitably applications for housing will increase. If the houses have been sold, the waiting lists will be lengthened accordingly.

Mr. Stephen Ross: On the assumption that the economy will improve and that industry will get going rather more than it is now, and that that will attract more people into new towns, as there will be highly paid jobs of about


£100 or more a week available, is it not possible that people will wish to purchase their own homes? Therefore, should not houses be made available for purchase in the new towns?

Mr. Newens: Surely the suggestion by the hon. Member for Aylesbury is not that houses should be made available for purchase by people coming to new towns, but that they should be made available for purchase to sitting tenants. People, however high their wages when they come to a new town, will have to wait much longer for a tenancy if that policy is followed, whether or not they buy houses ultimately, because there will be fewer relets available. That must follow as night follows day.

Mr. Raison: Mr. Raison inicated dissent.

Mr. Newens: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but his figures commit him to that principle, although he said that the extent to which sales affected available tenancies was not great. If the hon. Gentleman concedes the principle, as I believe he does, the waiting lists will inevitably lengthen as a result of the sales of houses that have taken place.
Furthermore, eligibility to go on the waiting list can be restricted in other ways. Some time ago Harlow was forced to close the list for old people who were eligible for rehousing because their sons and daughters had gone there. We are hoping to reopen that list. It is possible to limit the numbers who are eligible to be housed in a new town without regard to waiting lists elsewhere.
It is important to consider the general position of housing need. Many people living in the exporting areas—the old towns—are ineligible for the allocation of a houses in a new town because they have been unable to obtain jobs there under the industrial selection scheme. Unskilled, handicapped and older people have found it difficult to obtain jobs in new towns. As it is essential for people to obtain jobs in new towns before they can be allocated houses, they frequently have to put up with the most dreadful conditions in old towns. It is unreasonable to allow new town corporations to sell their houses when people from exporting areas are unable to obtain tenancies.
Furthermore, in surrounding areas the situation is frequently very much worse,

even for people in equivalent circumstances. A couple of weeks ago I wrote to one of Harlow's neighbouring authorities—Epping Forest District Council—about a tenancy application that had been made by somebody living in that area, three miles outside Harlow New Town. I received a reply that stated that the applicant came into the area only in 1967, and that he therefore did not go on to the waiting list until 1972 and could not possibly expect to be allocated a house without further years of waiting. In other words, somebody who came into my area nine years ago is still not eligible to be allocated a house. Opposition Members know that that prevails in areas with which they are concerned—in some case to a greater extent.
In these circumstances, to suggest selling off houses that are part of the existing rented housing stock means perpetrating and perpetuating unhappiness for those people who have to wait an inordinate length of time, such as nine years, to be allocated a house. In my view, difficulty over housing is one of the major social problems that produce, in part, the breakup of marriages, delinquency and all sorts of other problems. It is something to which we must pay very careful attention.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to the point that I made in Committee, about selling houses at 20 per cent. below current market value. That, in effect, means an additional subsidy to owner-occupiers as against tenants. This shows that opposition Members are very free when it comes to the question of disposing of public funds, in a way that is not reflected in certain other declarations that they make from time to time.
If houses are sold out of the rented housing pool, they have to be replaced at current building cost. That means that a house that is sold off realises much less, particularly after the 20 per cent. has been deducted, than it would cost the authority to replace it. This means, therefore, that the burden of the interest charges and the capital repayments on the new replacement house must be met from the revenue raised from the rents of tenants as a whole, which must be increased. In other words, by giving the subsidy to the sitting owner-occupier, an additional burden is placed upon tenants, which, if the sort of policies that have


been advocated in the past by the Conservatives through housing revenue legislation were put into effect, would be very considerable indeed.

Mr. Raison: I should like to point out that although the hon. Gentleman attacks the Opposition for allowing 20 per cent. discounts, the 20 per cent. discount on the sale of public housing generally is also present Labour Government policy. They have allowed and endorsed this for a number of years.

Mr. Newens: Yes, but the difference is that my right hon. and hon. Friends are not proposing to sell off houses in the same way or on anything like the same scale that Opposition Members are proposing. I still argue that the points that I made have to be considered by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure of one thing: hon. Gentlemen will not accuse me of not speaking out when I disagree with my own Front Bench on any issue. In these circumstances, I still maintain that the logic of what I said applies here, except that what the Government are suggesting is very different from the scale of the sales that Opposition Members are talking about.

Mr. George Rodgers: There is a point that rather intrigues me. I see that a line or two down the amendment it is suggested that there should be a further 1 per cent. reduction beyond three years, and that this should be allowed for each year of the tenancy up to a maximum of 30 years. That is an astonishing proposition. It would bring down the cost of a house enormously. I wonder why Opposition Members never consider that such a concession should be made available to tenants of private landlords. Why is such a suggestion not made in that direction by Opposition Members?

Mr. Newens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall come to that matter shortly.
It seems to me that the sitting tenant who buys and subsequently sells, even if he sells after a five-year limitation, or whatever the limitation may be, makes a substantial capital gain. That is very good luck for him. However, the cost has to be met by the general burden on tenants of the town, who must meet the

additional cost of replacing those houses from their total rent revenue.
As I understand it, the basic objective of the Opposition is not to provide more fully for housing needs but to provide for the expansion of owner-occupation. I believe that that is what the hon. Member for Aylesbury said in Committee, and I believe he said something like it today. Like the vast majority of my hon. Friends, if not all of them, I am certainly not opposed to owner-occupation, as such. I repeat what I said in Committee. I am an owner-occupier in Harlow. I bought my house from the development corporation. However, I did not buy it as a sitting tenant. The corporation, as part of its policy, built certain houses for sale, and certain houses that came into its domain through the acquisition of land within the designated area were sold. I am certainly not opposed to houses being sold in such circumstances.
In the past, the Labour Party has been particularly concerned to provide help for owner-occupiers. I believe that I am correct in saying that on the issue of 100 per cent. mortgages we were certainly first in the field. We have been concerned generally about mortgage rates and assisting owner-occupiers. Labour Members believe very strongly that such people ought to be assisted to the full.
I now turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers). If the Opposition believe so strongly in owner-occupation as a principle, why do they not put forward a Bill that would give private tenants the right to buy their houses at a 20 per cent. discount? I repeat the point, and I hope that Opposition Members will reply to it. Why will they not introduce a Bill that would provide a right for private tenants to buy the houses in which they live at 20 per cent. discount, if this principle is so important? We know why they will not bring forward such a Bill. I think they should make the distinction clear, for this is a tremendously important principle, and it would allow people to see where the Opposition stand.
When corporation houses are sold, families frequently have very serious difficulties in meeting mortgage repayments. I have had a continual stream of people who have begun buying corporation houses or council houses and have


subsequently come to my advice bureau or written to me because they have been unable to meet their mortgage repayments, due to economic difficulties. In those circumstances, when the building society or whoever has advanced the loan, forecloses, what happens to the family? What can they do?
6.0 p.m.
One cannot expect, having bought the house, that the corporation or the local council should immediately rehouse them. Sometimes, unfortunately, families have broken up. In those circumstances, the wife argues that as her husband was the owner of the house the corporation should offer her another one, but is it fair that the corporation, having provided one house, should provide another?
There are many problems of this sort. Another one is the problem of maintenance and administration. Frequently, where there is an estate in which peppercorn sales have been made, the cost of maintenance and administration per house has risen.
I am unhappy about the new clause. I hope that it will be strongly resisted, because I do not believe that it is in the interests of the people in the new towns, whether they are owner-occupiers or tenants. If any person in a new town wishes to become an owner-occupier, as far as I am aware, there has been no difficulty in that person becoming one, because houses are normally available for sale—but not at a 20 per cent. discount. If we resist the new clause we shall be acting much more in the interests of a happy and contented community than if we allow large numbers of houses to be sold off in the way proposed.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Generally speaking I welcome the new clause, although I am not so sure about subsection (2). However, I welcome subsection (1) and I think that it is a new clause which ought to be supported. I also welcome the Minister's most recent statement. I think he has just about got the case right.
I wish we could get away from the perennial argument which we have in the House in respect of the arbitrary sale of council houses. It surely must depend upon the situation pertaining in the areas in which the houses are

situated. I accept that Harlow is probably an exception, but, on the whole, new town waiting lists are short. I have quoted figures in previous debates. Milton Keynes is one example, Northampton another and Peterlee one more.
Harlow has a 52-week waiting list, and there is probably a case for saying that in respect of Harlow it would be better to wait a little longer to see whether the list shortens before one permits sales. However, in other areas I think they should be permitted. I would also argue that there should be a discount. It was the practice previously to have a 20 per cent. discount. Everyone knows that in property transactions sitting tenants look for a discount, and one wants to encourage them to buy. All of us, even the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), wish to encourage owner-occupation, and people who have been in a house for three years or more expect to get a discount.
I do not think many people would take up the proposition if a Bill was brought in stating that people in private tenancies should be permitted to buy at 20 per cent. discount. They would want a far bigger discount than that. When I was in business, many of my clients asked me if I could possibly sell their property. On the open market it was probably worth about £10,000 or £12,000, but if it was let they would have been lucky to get about £2,000 from the tenant. Even when I advised tenants to buy the property because it was a bargain, they said "No".
There are also a lot of elderly people who have had a house left to them and who would like to get a little money out of it before they die. Yet when we encourage people to buy at a bargain price they expect a far bigger discount than 20 per cent. Therefore, what the hon. Member for Harlow says is a misconception.
I think the Minister knows that the chief executives in the new towns want to go back to a selling policy. In my own part of the world, in the Isle of Wight, we do not have any new towns, but I happen to know that a Conservative chairman of one housing committee is completely opposed to the sale of council houses. It is not necessarily a party argument.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question which is important as regards the way he might vote in a Division? The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) discounts altogether any possibility that the sale of houses affects the waiting list. I agree with so much of what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) was saying that I thought I was making the speech myself. The hon. Member said that in certain areas waiting lists were zero and that in those cases no harm was done. But he then quoted Harlow New Town, where the waiting list is 52 weeks. In saying that, does he not accept that the sale of houses affects the waiting list?

Mr. Ross: Yes. I think that waiting lists are of great importance, and they certainly affect this matter. I do not accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). One must take that into account. If the Minister, in his reply, were to say that he intended to permit sales in new towns at 20 per cent. discount where there was a waiting list of nine weeks or less, that would be a great step forward and I would support him.
The hon. Member for Harlow is living in dreamland, because unless we start selling these properties or changing the way in which we finance house-building we shall not get the houses built anyway because the rent coming in from them does not make it a practical proposition. The Minister will know what the Treasury is saying. We shall have to adopt a different attitude. There are many people living in council houses who jolly well ought to be buying in the private sector, and I am greatly in favour of encouraging them to do so.
Another way around this problem is to give a grant to people living in rented accommodation in the new towns. We could give them up to £200 to encourage them to purchase in the private sector. Surely that makes sense. This would be another move to make our housing policy more flexible. We cannot simply sit still and say that we will build more houses to let, since it costs housing authorities far more to build those houses because of loan and mortgage interest, repayments and so on. That does not make sense. Anyone who has experience

knows that one has to be flexible and that there has to be finance from other areas and not only from the State.

Mr. Newens: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a local authority or a new town disposes of the stock of houses that were built some time ago, it will cost a great deal more money to replace those houses, particularly taking into account the 20 per cent. discount? The financial burden on the housing revenue account will be increased considerably. In that case, surely it is the hon. Member and not me who is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Mr. Ross: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. We do not want to get into an argument, but I consider that the housing revenue account would be in much better trim if a substantial proportion of the housing stock were sold, because fewer houses would have to be built as replacements. When they were built, there would not be an economic rent for them anyway. The calculations show that this is correct. More councils should be encouraged to build for sale, and people moving into the areas should be encouraged to buy, not to rent.
The situation today is far better than it was two or three years ago. Industrial wages in my constituency have almost doubled. Two years ago, when this Government came to power, they were right to stop some of the council house sales because there were people earning less than £30 a week who had no hope of buying. Now, they are earning between £55 and £60 and are within shooting distance of purchasing. People who want council houses come to see me on Saturday mornings. When I find that they often earn substantial sums, I ask why they do not buy. There are decent properties in inner urban areas in my constituency for £6,000 to £7,000. Some of these people are thinking about this matter again. People earning £100 a week could probably buy a house in Harlow.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Aylesbury is becoming more radical about conveyancing. All my relations are lawyers, but I believe that it is time that the Law Society put its house in order. This would greatly cheapen and


simplify the buying and selling of houses. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Dr. Colin Phipps: I must apologise to the two Front Bench speakers for not having heard the start of this debate, but I was at another meeting.
Essentially, both sides are putting different interpretations on much the same thing. The important factor is the increase in the housing stock. If by selling local authority houses we can increase the stock, that must improve the housing of our population. I appreciate that for various reasons the Conservative Party believes that owner-occupation is important. I know that there are reasons which lead Frank Field, of the Child Poverty Action Group, to believe that the sale of council houses improves the distribution of wealth. From a Socialist point of view, that is also an important argument.
Probably 50 per cent. of the problems raised in our surgeries are housing problems. The selling of council houses may lead to an increase in the council housing stock, while in other cases it may diminish it. Speaking from a completely non-doctrinaire viewpoint, I believe that actions which increase the stock must be good while actions which might not allow the building of additional houses are bad.
The important factor is the type of house which is being sold. I have found among local authorities the peculiar attitude that older houses built before the war for £300 or £400 are still worth that amount instead of the more likely figure of £6,000 or £7,000. They are, in effect, paying 13 per cent. on £7,000, because that is the money they could obtain for each house on the open market. If one adds maintenance costs, which are obviously higher for older houses, one is paying interest on perhaps £11,000 or £12,000 for each house, which is sufficient to build another house and thereby increase the stock. This may not be true of more recent houses, so it is the type of house which is important.
6.15 p.m.
The Bill makes no distinction between different types of house. The Government should tell the new town corporations to examine their housing stock and realise

what costs each house represents and that a house built in, say, 1936 costs in real terms much more than one built in 1974. When the replacement money received including the saving on maintenance costs, is grossed up at 13 per cent. interest, the capital amount involved each year is considerable. If one is paying £130 a year in maintenance, that represents a capital cost of £1,000 if one is paying interest at 13 per cent. That money could be used to build new houses.
This is a totally non-doctrinaire view, which should not be taken as favouring owner-occupation or the greater distribution of wealth. I am merely considering bluntly the question of how we can increase the housing stock.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. What sort of house does he think it would not be worth selling? He is arguing a good case for selling older houses, but it is equally a case for selling new houses.

Dr. Phipps: The problem with selling new houses essentially comes down to the question of whether they are built for sale or for rent. There is a definite need for houses to rent. When we sell a council house, we should be looking to replace it with a house for rent. This is essential in view of the many people on waiting lists who cannot afford to buy their own homes.
We should increase the houses for rent by the required number by selling houses which, when sold, will enable us to build the same number of new houses for rent, thus killing two birds with one stone. It does not make sense to build purely for sale when there is such a demand for houses to rent.
I believe that the new clause should provide for the Government to direct local authorities to review their housing situation along the lines I have suggested, thus helping to increase the total number of houses. In that way we are bound eventually to solve the housing problem.

Mr. Peter Hordern: I am glad to have the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who so cogently moved the new clause. I am also happy to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps). He referred to his speech as


being non-controversial, and I shall do my best to follow the lines of his argument and in the same spirit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury suggested that the clause would be popular in new towns. I agree. The local election results in Crawley New Town demonstrated this by resulting in more Conservative than Labour votes on a very high turn-out.
Pursuing my non-controversial theme and returning to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Dudley, West about the desirability of selling the old stock of housing and retaining the new stock, I remember the hon. Member saying that that would be killing two birds with one stone. I suggest that it is better to kill three birds with one stone. Indeed, that is what the Government are groping for. The Government admit the principle that in certain circumstances the sale of new town houses is correct. They admit this for the best of all possible reasons—because it is financially better. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why it is better to offer tenants of new town and council houses the opportunity to buy their homes.
In Crawley New Towns, more than half the rent received for a new council house is spent on administration and repairs. The net receipts of the council from this source are very small. On average, in my constituency it costs £25 a week to run a council house, whereas the rent received is £6. On average, in the GLC area the cost of administration and repairs exceeds the rent. It would be cheaper for the GLC to give houses to tenants than to sell them. I hope that the hon. Member for Dudley, West will pursue the logic of his thoughtful argument and join us in the Division Lobby.

Dr. Phipps: I am trying to establish that there is not much logic in a local authority building a new house and selling it essentially at a discount. In that way local authorities would rapidly approach bankruptcy. With houses which still have a book value of £20 or more written down within the local authority's balance sheet, there is logic in finding out whether their current value, grossed up at the current interest rate, plus the grossed-up value of maintenance is sufficient to provide an alternative house. It is difficult

to suggest to a local authority that it should build a house for £10,000 and sell it for £8,000.

Mr. Hordern: The hon. Gentleman must pursue the logic of his argument to its conclusion. Hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is right to build council houses for rent and that we urgently need to increase the supply of housing stock. It would be inconceivable not to encourage maximum building for rent. That objective can best be achieved by offering tenants the opportunity to buy their homes, for the simple reason that that is the best way of improving the housing revenue account.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) that, if we go on as we are with rents as they are and as they are prescribed in the Public Expenditure White Paper, either the building programme will grind to a halt or the Government will have drastically to increase council house rents. The figures in the Public Expenditure White Paper show that to be so.
What is the reason for the extraordinary increase in the cost of public sector housing in the last four years if it is not the fact that council rents have been kept so low? Speaking in terms of 1975 prices, the increase in public expenditure has been from £2·5 billion in 1972–73 to £4·4 billion in 1974–75. We are led to believe that in 1979–80, at 1975 prices, public expenditure on housing will be £4·09 billion, which is a reduction on the 1974–75 figure.
Public sector rent increases have been kept at 60p a dwelling for 1976–77, but the average level of rent compared with expenditure over the country as a whole is 43 per cent., and the Government's objective is to increase that proportion to 50 per cent. by 1978–79. It is inconceivable that that can happen without a substantial increase in rents. Either we must disbelieve the Public Expenditure White Paper, as I am inclined to do on other grounds, or council tenants face an undreamt-of increase in rent if the housing programme is to continue at the same rate.
If the hon. Member for Harlow wishes to see an increase in housing in his constituency, as I do in mine, the only way to achieve the objective that we both


desire is to ensure that tenants are given the opportunity to buy their own homes. Otherwise there will be disaster, either a slow-down in the housing programme or greatly increased rents. There can be no other alternative.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Is there not a third possibility—a reduction in the monstrous administration and maintenance charges?

Mr. Hordern: I entirely accept that. That is the point I made earlier when I said that the cost of administration and repairs in my costituency amounted to half the rents received and in the GLC area exceeded the rent received.
The hon. Member for Harlow and I represent new towns, and we arc both anxious to secure the expansion of housing programmes. I do not see the logic of the distinction which the Government draw between offering houses for sale in new towns where there is no waiting list and offering houses for sale in new towns where there is a waiting list.
The length of the waiting list is determined by the cheapness of the rent compared with the price of housing in the private sector. The Crawley council's waiting list grew by 10 per cent. last year and the waiting time is three years. On those grounds, I doubt whether the Government would encourage Crawley council to offer houses for sale to sitting tenants. On all counts, and for financial reasons particularly, it is better to allow the sale of council houses to enable the council housing revenue account to be in a better position.
I do not know what is the position in Harlow, but in my constituency the council has a substantial building programme during the next few years of 2,300 houses, and it is building at the rate of 500 houses a year. This is a particularly difficult problem for all new towns because they have a large stock of comparatively new houses and a small stock of old houses. The extent to which they depend on housing subsidies is greater than that of average towns throughout the country as a whole. I do not see how the objective of providing more housing can be attained unless tenants are given the opportunity to buy their own homes at a discount.
6.30 p.m.
For all those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury will press the new clause to a Division. I shall be interested to know what are the Minister's arguments. He has put his own case, with which the hon. Member for Harlow disagreed. His case was that on principle there should be no right for a Government agency to offer tenants their houses for sale. The Minister thinks that some people should have the right. If that principle is acceded to, bearing in mind the financial considerations it is plainly better to offer that opportunity and that that principle should apply to all and not only to some. For those reasons I am happy to support my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Silkin: We have cantered round this particular course on a number of occasions recently, but the horse that is being cantered today seems to be of a different colour. I congratulate the Opposition on their ingenuity in framing the new clause, but I am not sure that I shall get the applause that I received a moment ago when I explain why.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that he was introducing the new clause in the words and form in which it appears because he had had second thoughts about his amendment in Committee and he was taking the Long Title and other matters into consideration. He fairly said that the fact that the new clause asks for the scheme to include certain rights does not mean that there should not be other rights when one deals with the disposal of new town houses.
Let us examine the new clause and let us see the mounting enthusiasm with which my "pair", the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) decides to move towards the Division Lobby.

Mr. Hordern: Ex-pair.

Mr. Silkhi: Private enterprise pair.
The first subsection of the new clause reads as follows:
A scheme shall include the statutory right for a tenant of the Commission for the new towns and development corporations".
One should note that no development corporations are actually specified, but the gentleman in question who is to have a


statutory right must be a tenant of both the Commission for the New Towns and a number of unspecified development corporations. The word "tenant" does not refer here only to a tenant of a house, because the gentleman in question could be a tenant of a factory or warehouse. A person who is a tenant of a factory in Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes and Harlow is the person who may, under the clause, be allowed to purchase a dwelling provided that he has been resident in a new town dwelling for at least three years. The new town need not have been a new town when he was a resident. He must at least have been a tenant of a factory and resident in a dwelling in a new town area for a period of three years.
Clause 16 explains what a dwelling is. It says:
'dwelling' means any building or part of a building occupied, or erected or adapted for occupation, as a dwelling or as a hostel (including any land belonging thereto or usually enjoyed therewith);
Our tenant of a factory in Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes and Harlow has also to have been in a hostel for three years, irrespective of whether the new town was in existence or even thought of, in order to qualify. I wondered why my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) spoke of housing in 1936. He was right, because the gentleman in question could have been in a hostel for three years in 1936, now being a tenant of a factory in Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes and Harlow. That would qualify him.
I must warn my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, and I may have to warn the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), of the terrible consequences involved because of the provisions of New Clause 3(2). Part of what has been suggested is coming true. It was suggested that the logic of that subsection was that it should extend to private housing as well as to development corporation houses. It does. The subsection states:
 "The sale of new town houses shall be at 20 per cent. below the current market value with vacant possession, provided that this would not be below cost; and a further 1 per cent. beyond the three years shall be allowed for each year of tenancy in the new town up to a maximum of 30 years.
Provided that our gentleman has been living in a hostel for three years at any

time and has been a tenant of a factory in Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes and Harlow, he can go to my hon. Friend's house and purchase it at 20 per cent. off and get another 1 per cent. off for every year after that. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet had also better watch out.
I make that rather facetious point not because I do not realise that there can be defects in new clauses. Of course I realise that. I am saying that this is a defect the like of which none of us could possibly vote for. It is an incredible defect. Rules for a scheme of the sort suggested by the hon. Member for Aylesbury for the purchase of houses from a local authority cannot be put in a Bill in such a rigid and doctrinaire fashion. One can do it by circular or regulation, although those would have to be altered from time to time. The matter cannot be dealt with in the way which has been suggested in the way I have described it.
There are other points of substance. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) made the distinction that all reasonable people, including those in new towns, would make—that there is a difference between one new town and another. There may be a great deal of difference between waiting lists in one new town and another. The hon. Member for Aylesbury must accept that, just as my hon. future and past pair has to accept it, because that is part of the case. A large waiting list would not be affected if one were to sell any of the houses to tenants. But we all know that it is affected. It is one of those hunch things that one knows perfectly well. It is not the only factor, but the very 4·4 per cent. relets that the hon. Member for Aylesbury accepts mean that there is a turn-round. I do not know whether the figures quoted are correct, but they seem rather horrific.
When we talk about new town housing we are talking about a very special form of housing. We are talking about people who went there originally because they were qualified to do a job—skilled workers. I think that I have the general sympathy of the House on the consultation document. I have heard kind noises from the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), who knows his new towns because he is a Member for one. He said that I was


right in saying that my priorities should include the handicapped, single-parent families, the old and second-generation families.
Are all those people capable of buying their own house? Have they the money to do it? Of course not. Where are they to obtain the money? Therefore, there must always be an element of renting, however much one wants to weight matters in favour of owner-occupation. I should love everybody to be an owner-occupier, but it will not be possible. Therefore, our basis must be that of need.
We must accept that there is a difference between one new town and another. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight is right to draw distinctions between them. He gave the case to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) with the 52-week waiting list.
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West said. But there is an absolutely fundamental point on which Conservative Members do not argee with him, and their purrs of approval as he spoke seemed to glide past that point, which concerned the use of the money to increase the public housing stock. I said that where housing was sold I wanted the money to be used to help meet the need—to help the disabled, the second-generation families and the elderly. That is what my hon. Friend wants. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asks me many questions and I try to answer them. I have three times asked him whether he would use the money from the sale of new town houses or local authority houses to increase the public housing stock. Each time he has failed to answer. He knows that that is not his intention. That is where he differs from my hon. Friend.
We believe that there is a difference in need between new towns. Here I must again refer to the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley. He says that I accept the case because of the financial benefit, by which he means the public expenditure benefit. I accept that it is socially right that new towns should mirror the old towns, but if I am to accept that it is socially right that we should have more owner-occupation in new towns I also accept that it is socially right that we should provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Hordern: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman believes that it is socially right that there should be a proper balance between the private and the public sector in new towns. But does he agree that it is to the financial advantage of the new towns that they should offer their tenants the opportunity to buy their houses?

Mr. Silkin: It depends. If one accepts my view that we may want to increase the housing stock where necessary and provide houses to rent, we may not see those houses let at the sort of rents the hon. Gentleman would regard as economic, because we may be dealing with the disadvantaged. That is what I want to do, and I believe it to be socially right.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is it not the case that Government intervention in housing policy has never been financial? That has been accepted by both parties since the First World War. The aim is to meet a social need in order to improve dire social circumstances resulting from inadequate houses and the fact that so many people cannot provide proper houses for themselves.

Mr. Silkin: That it should be so, I absolutely agree. I do not want to reopen old wounds, but I remember an occasion about four years ago when I would have said that that was not necessarily the basis of what was going on in housing policy.
I have been asked what I shall say to the chairmen of the new towns. We must accept that the hon. Member for Aylesbury is an Opposition Front Bench spokesman and, therefore, must be able to claim some victories, even when he has been pushing at an open door. He says that I gave ground in my speech on 18th May this year. At Question Time after Question Time I have always taken the same point of view as I did then. What I said on 18th May is what I have said before and since. The timing has not altered by one second as a result of anything the hon. Gentleman said.
My meeting with the new town chairman is on 12th July, a few weeks later than I had originally intended, but certain difficulties have kept me in the House when I might have been able to do some other work. The meeting will be purely


on the basis I expressed on 18th May, that certain new towns will now be able to sell their houses, in accordance with the social conditions that I have outlined, and others will not. It is up to them to tell me, and for me therefore to consult them and everybody concerned, what the basis should be.
It is not for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to tell me, even if this were not the nonsensical clause that it is and even if the hon. Gentleman were really concerned about people who live in the new town houses and not people who live in hostels and own factories, or are tenants of factories. Even if the hon. Gentleman had got it right, even if he had been competent in it, it would still not be for him to start dictating the terms to the new town chairmen.
It is for us to discuss the matter and work it out. It is on that basis, and that basis alone, that the programme will be carried out. It will not be done because the hon. Gentleman thinks it looks good on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Michael Morris: The right hon. Gentleman played a lot with the technicalities of the clause. I have never yet known one lawyer agree with another on interpretation. Experienced as the right hon. Gentleman is, I suggest that in time his view will probably be proved incorrect. Even if the right hon. Gentleman were correct, if he had said that he accepted the spirit of the clause my hon. Friend and I would have sought leave to withdraw it, and would have looked forward to seeing a new clause introduced in another place. But the right hon. Gentleman has come down firmly against it, and therefore we shall press very hard.
I should like to comment briefly on the contribution made by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), who is not now present. The primary rôle of housing in the new towns is to meet need, but there is no role for a Government who take the view that the Government must for ever hold on to that housing. It is the rôle of the Government to provide for all people to have a home and then, at some point of time, to envisage that that accommodation can be re-used to further the public good.
Secondly, we appreciate that the re-letting figure of 4·4 per cent. could have

had some effect in regard to waiting lists. However, the numbers involved are minuscule. In the new town in my area 160 homes have been sold, and of that proportion only a tiny percentage have been re-let. Therefore, the net loss has been insignificant. We must not restrict people's potential.

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Gentleman well knows that, as I am sure is common ground between us, the waiting list in Northampton is not very long. Would it not be fairer if he were to give figures of other waiting lists—for example—that in the Harlow area?

Mr. Morris: I was referring to a point of time at which the Northampton waiting list was running at a figure of 48 weeks. It was then that the Minister came down with a chopper on the situation.
The distressing feature of the speech made by the hon. Member for Harlow was that, once again, it demonstrated the politics of envy. The idea was that the people who cannot buy a house at this time should for ever be precluded from so doing. Surely it is not wrong for a person who has made a new home in an area then to want to buy his own home.
Mention has been made of mortgage defaulters and of the annual reports issued by Crawley, Hemel Hempstead, Hatfield and Welwyn. The fact is that 23 homes out of a total figure of 5,470 homes were repossessed because of mortgage difficulties. It is a sad problem, but it is not a problem that negates the whole policy of sale. It has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) that the housing revenue account will benefit substantially from sales.
The new clause is the Conservative commitment to home ownership. The Government must know that 80 per cent. of people want to own their own homes. This is no laughing matter, although I see that the Minister finds it amusing. I repeat the people want to own their own homes. We also accept that 15 per cent. of people want to rent accommodation in the public sector. Furthermore, we accept that there are people who are put at a disadvantage because they have to rent accommodation. It is the role of the State to provide sources for them. However, this does not mean that we should


deny people the opportunity to buy their own homes. The clause will give those people the opportunity to purchase their own homes at the point of transfer.
The Minister persists in using as an axis of his policy the fact that waiting lists become a little less tenable when they are examined. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked for information about waiting lists at the end of March. I asked an identical question in regard to the situation up to the middle of May, some six weeks later. It is interesting to note how waiting lists fluctuate in a period of six weeks. For example, the waiting list in Corby for the period to the end of March involved a figure of 40 weeks, but six weeks later that figure had come down to 14 weeks. That is some indication of how unreliable are waiting lists when considering the question of need. If the Minister examines the situation of waiting lists, he will see that there arc violent fluctuations.

Mr. John Silkin: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of my conditions was that we should have a more effective monitoring system?

Mr. Morris: Is the Minister suggesting that, because the waiting lists fluctuate, he will need to have an army of people to keep a close monitoring of the situation, or would it not be better to adopt a broad-brush approach and embrace a swings-and-roundabouts situation and allow matters to settle down? The people who buy are the people who will stay, and in no way will that accommodation be re-let. The Minister should go along to see some of the new town tenants. He will soon appreciate that people who buy will not be those who have to be regarded as potential re-lets.
Two months have now elapsed since the Minister's statement. There has been much disappointment that the Minister in that statement did not say when he would give permission to allow sales to begin. It would very much assist hon. Members if they could be given a date. If the Minister wishes to give us that information, I shall willingly give way to him.

Mr. John Silkin: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants an opportunity to have a short rest while he is waiting for the events that will take place at

7 o'clock, and I also know that he is anxious to have an answer to his question. He will be interested to know that, curiously enough, the basis of the consultation with the chairmen of the new towns has the aim of consulting those chairmen—in other words, I want to hear what they have to say. Provided we meet the conditions laid down on 18th May—and there is no reason why that should not be the case—there is no reason why the sale process should not begin straight away. However, it must contain those conditions and must be subject to what the new town chairmen have to say.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful that the Minister says that sales can begin straight away. He knows that the new town chairmen have written to him expressing forceful views to the effect that they wish to begin sales. We are grateful to the Minister, since it is now on the record that they can begin that process straight away.

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear what I said, which seems to have been rather endemic on the Opposition Front Bench today because I appear to have to repeat almost everything I say. I shall be meeting the new town chairmen. The purpose of that meeting is that I should consult them as to the conditions we need. Obviously, there will have to be proper consultations with each individual town. There is no question of a cut-and-dried answer being given in this House until we have carried out those consultations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me later to repeat all this.

Mr. Morris: No, I do not expect it. It seems to vary a little each time the right hon. Gentleman speaks. I was listening to him extremely carefully. I was referring to his receiving a communication from the chairmen of the new towns, which I think was on 26th February. The views of the chairmen of the new towns have not changed since then, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well. He is playing for time. He is very good at this, and we acknowledge it.
The case we put forward in the clause is based on the fact that the Conservative Party—I think the right hon. Gentleman


accepts this—has paid tribute to the concept of the new towns and to the practical experience on the ground, but we say that the right hon. Gentleman, by putting down the chopper two years ago, has lost two years' benefit to the people who live in the new towns. We say that the time has come for him to stop treating them as a special case and denying them the opportunity to buy when people in local council areas can buy.
The Bill provides a golden opportunity, where a transfer is made, to give people

the right to have an option to buy. It does no more and no less. I believe that we in this House should, just for once, respond to the wishes of the people. People want to own their own homes, and the clause gives them an opportunity to do so. I urge my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members to support the clause.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 288.

Division No. 185]
AYES
[7 01 p m.


Adley, Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knox, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lamont, Norman


Alison, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lane, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Forman, Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fox, Marcus
Lawrence, Ivan


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lawson, Nigel


Baker, Kenneth
Fry, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Banks, Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lloyd, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Luce, Richard


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Berry, Hon Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan
McCrindle, Robert


Biffen, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macfarlane, Neil


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
MacGregor, John


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Body, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bottomley, Peter
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Madel, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marten, Neil


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gray, Hamish
Mates, Michael


Brittan, Leon
Griffiths, Eldon
Mather, Carol


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grist, Ian
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Brotherton, Michael




Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grylls, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hall, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mayhew, Patrick


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bulmer, Esmond
Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Burden, F. A.
Hannam, John
Mills, Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Miscampbell, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Havers, Sir Michael
Moate, Roger


Channon, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector


Churchill, W. S.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Montgomery, Fergus


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Heseltine, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Clegg, Walter
Holland, Philip
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Cockcroft, John
Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cope, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Mudd, David


Corrie, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neave, Airey


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John
Nelson, Anthony


Crouch, David
Hurd, Douglas
Neubert, Michael


Crowder, F. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Newton, Tony


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nott, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
James, David
Onslow, Cranley


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby
Page, John (Harrow West)


Drayson, Burnaby
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Durant, Tony
Jopling, Michael
Percival, Ian


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kershaw, Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner


Emery, Peter
Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Fairgrieve, Russell
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Farr, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Timothy


Fell, Anthony
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rathbone, Tim




Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sinclair, Sir George
Trotter, Neville


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Speed, Keith
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Spence, John
Viggers, Peter


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wakeham, John


Ridsdale, Julian
Sproat, Iain
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stainton, Keith
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stanley, John
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Weatherill, Bernard


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wells, John


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stokes, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Royle, Sir Anthony
Storehouse, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Nicholas


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tapsell, Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tebbit, Norman
Younger, Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Temple-Morris, Peter



Shepherd, Colin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shersby, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Silvester, Fred
Townsend, Cyril D.
Mr. Cecil Parkinson


Sims, Roger






NOES


Abse, Leo
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Huckfield, Les


Allaun, Frank
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Anderson, Donald
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Archer, Peter
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Ashley, Jack
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Atkinson, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Janner, Greville


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Eadie, Alex
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bates, Alf
Edge, Geoff
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bean, R. E.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Beith, A. J.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
John, Brynmor


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Boardman, H.
Evans, John (Newton)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ewing Harry (Stirling)
Kaufman, Gerald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Faulds, Andrew
Kelley, Richard


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kerr, Russell


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bradley, Tom
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lambie, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin
Lamborn, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)
Lamond, James


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Ford, Ben
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Buchanan, Richard
Forrester, John
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Fraser, John (Lambeth,N'w'd)
Lipton, Marcus


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Freeson, Reginald
Litterick, Tom


Campbell, Ian
Freud, Clement
Lomas, Kenneth


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Loyden, Eddie


Carmichael, Neil
George, Bruce
Luard, Evan


Carter, Ray
Golding, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Cartwright, John
Gould, Bryan
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Clemitson, Ivor
Gourlay, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McElhone, Frank


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, John (Islington C)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Coleman, Donald
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Grocott, Bruce
Mackenzie, Gregor


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackintosh, John P.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hardy, Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, Kevin


Crawshaw, Richard
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Madden, Max


Cronin, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Magee, Bryan


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hatton, Frank
Mahon, Simon


Cryer, Bob
Hayman, Mrs Helena
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Marks, Kenneth


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David


Davidson, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hooson, Emlyn
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Horam, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Maynard, Miss Joan


Deakins, Eric
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Meacher, Michael


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mendelson, John







Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Millan, Bruce
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tomlinson, John


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Tomney, Frank


Molloy, William
Roderick, Caerwyn
Torney, Tom


Moonman, Eric
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tuck, Raphael


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Urwin, T. W.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rooker, J. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Roper, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Moyle, Roland
Rose, Paul B.
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mulley, Rt Hon Ronald King
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Newens, Stanley
Rowlands, Ted
Ward, Michael


Noble, Mike
Sandelson, Neville
Watkins, David


Oakes, Gordon
Sedgemore, Brian
Watkinson, John


Ogden, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Weetch, Ken


O'Halloran, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Weitzman, David


Orbach, Maurice
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wellbeloved, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ovenden, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
White, James (Pollok)


Owen, Dr David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitehead, Phillip


Padley, Walter
Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Palmer, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Pardoe, John
Small, William
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Park, George
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Parker, John
Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Parry, Robert
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stallard, A. W.
Williams. Sir Thomas


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Pendry, Tom
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Penhaligon, David
Stoddart, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Perry, Ernest
Strang, Gavin
Woodall, Alec


Phipps, Dr Colin
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.
Woof, Robert


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Prescott, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)



Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Radice, Giles
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tierney, Sydney
Mr. Thomas Cox


Richardson, Miss Jo

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2

CONSULTATIONS WITH A VIEW TO TRANSFER SCHEMES

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 6, leave out from 'him' to end of line 7 and insert:
', with each other and with the council of any other district within which any part of the area of the new town or any dwellings of the new town or any associated property is or are situated, with a view to a transfer scheme being made in respect of the new town by the new town corporation and the council to whom the directions are given.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this amendment we may take Government Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) will recall that in Committee he asked about the effect that a transfer scheme might have on an adjoining district that might be affected by the scheme and that I promised to consider whether we could include in the Bill a provision to implement

the purpose of his amendment but which at the same time avoided giving the adjoining district a power of veto. In Committee, I gave a clear indication of the difficulties that might arise.
I considered ways in which we could meet the hon. Gentleman on this matter without frustrating the object of the Bill and preventing the implementation of the principle of good estate management to which the parties and the Secretary of State are required to have regard by Clause 3(2).
There seem to be three different sorts of minor district council that we are discussing. The first is the council within whose area there are situated dwellings of a new town or other land that might be included in the transfer of properties or in the management arrangements under the scheme. I am thinking of a place like Crawley, where the bulk of the dwellings are within the area of the Crawley District Council, with a few in Horsham and a few in Mid-Sussex.
The second is the council of a district within whose area part of a new town is situated but which is not to be a party to the transfer scheme. At the time of the consultations this district may or may


not contain dwellings or land likely to be included in the transfer scheme. A good example of this is Redditch. I am fortunate to have on the Opposition Front Bench the hon. Member who represents that town. In Redditch we have a case in which the adjoining district council area of Stratford-on-Avon has a small area of land within the designated area of the new town, and that is land which might or might not provide new town dwellings in the future.
The third case is that of the Central Lancashire New Town, where there is a plurality of district councils—three in fact—where adjoining councils have land in the designated area.
These are three areas that I had to consider very carefully. I had to consider the distinction I was going to make between the three cases. The hon. Member for Northampton, South, for a change, made a strong case on this, and I am giving him his way on all three occasions. These amendments make this good.

Mr. Michael Morris: Suffice to say that the right hon. Gentleman has responded to minority interests, and the minority is extremely grateful. This means that the Bill has been improved. We are most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I also welcome Amendment No. 6 because it helps second and third generation towns.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 18, leave out:
'it appears to the Secretary of State'
and insert:
'the Secretary of State has, after consulting the new town corporation for the town concerned, formed the opinion'.
This amendment concerns the third of the three circumstances specified in Clause 2(2) in which the Secretary of State is enabled to issue directions to new town corporations and district councils to enter into consultations with a view to making a transfer scheme. As hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall, Clause 2(2)(c) is designed to cover exceptional cases of transfer earlier than 15 years after the first designation of the town.
During the Committee the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) moved an amendment to make Clause 2(2)(c) dependent on the agreed view of the Secretary of State and the new town corporation that the development of the new town had been substantially completed or that the carrying out of a transfer scheme would not be detrimental to the laying out or completion of the town. However, when my hon. Friend explained that this would effectively have given the new town corporation a veto over whether consultations might take place at all, the hon. Member withdrew his amendment.
Nevertheless, we have given some further thought to the process by which the Secretary of State would formulate a view as to whether the development of a new town had been substantially completed, or whether the carrying out of a transfer scheme would be detrimental to the laying out or completion of the development of the town.
There is little doubt that the Secretary of State would, in practice, wish to consult the new town corporation in order to assist him in coming to a view on these matters, although this does not mean, of course, that his view will necessarily coincide with the corporation's and be accepted absolutely. Nevertheless we think it is desirable that there should be some indication in the statute that this procedure will be carried out. The present amendment accordingly incorporates a provision for the Secretary of State to consult the relevant new town corporation before coming to any conclusion on whether one of the two conditions set out in Clause 2(2)(c) is fulfilled, and whether, accordingly, it is appropriate to issue directions under subsection (1) of the clause for the corporation and district council to enter into consultation on the making of a transfer scheme. I hope that the House will welcome this small but useful amplification of the terms of Clause 2(2)(c).

Mr. Michael Morris: I welcome the amendment. I think there is actually more substance to it than the Under-Secretary suggests. The evidence is becoming increasingly strong that in new towns younger than 15 years there may be a number of instances where for one reason or another it has not been provided that a transfer should take place.


Therefore, while there is always the necessity of an exception, it will not be an exceptional exception. That is rare. There is an increased desire on the part of district councils and, indeed, of development corporations themselves, particularly where development is split into a number of phases which might be quite separate, to undertake a transfer before the 15-year date. Therefore, this amendment will facilitate that situation.
Added to that, it is more realistic to say what would have happened in any case. We should put in legal terms what we think should happen in actual fact, rather than leave it vague. Therefore, I welcome the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 3, line 28, leave out from 'other' to end of line 33 and insert:
'and the Secretary of State to enter into consultations with a view to a transfer scheme being made in respect of the new town by the corporation and the council; and the corporation and the council and the Secretary of State shall enter into such consultations with each other and with the council of any other district within which any part of the area of the new town or any dwellings of the new town or any associated property is or are situated.'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 3

PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF TRANSFER SCHEMES

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 3, line 34, leave out from 'consultations' to 'to' in line 37 and insert:
'under section 2 above with respect to a new town it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient for the new town corporation and a district council to whom directions have been given or by or to whom a request has been made under that section'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 3

PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF TRANSFER SCHEMES

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 2, leave out 'possible' and insert 'reasonably practicable'.
I shall explain the reasons for this amendment. A working party comprising

officials of the Department, local authority associations, and new town corporations has been examining in detail the contents of subsection (6) with a view to producing a model transfer scheme. We would hope to commend this model to new town corporations and district councils, together with other detailed administrative guidance, once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The present requirement to indicate on, or by reference to, a map, all rights
in, under or over land which it is possible to indicate
could impose an unreasonable administrative and cartographic burden on the parties to a transfer scheme. This could unnecessarily complicate the transfer process. The amendment is designed to make the situation more flexible.
I remind the House that another part of the clause makes it absolutely clear that a transfer scheme will include a clear description of the assets to be transferred, so that they can be readily identified. What we are doing in this amendment is making it possible to exclude matters that would otherwise make the situation virtually incomprehensible.

Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditch): In contrast to the previous amendment, this one actually represents a further retreat from the original position of having a rather more specific map. Under the amendment we are replacing the word "possible" with "as far as is reasonably practicable". I take it from the Under-Secretary's remarks that he would be kind enough to confirm that the dwellings will be shown quite clearly on the map, so that people may have an immediate visual appreciation of whether or not they are involved. I hope that the map will show open spaces, established units, and other points that we discussed at length in Committee. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the map will show what it can show reasonably and that this will not just be an excuse for not having a map at all.
Individual owners must be able to identify the extent to which their properties are affected, whereas we would not expect the map to show such rights and obligations as second mortgages or ground rents owing on the owner-occupied houses. I take it, however, that the map will be as comprehensive as practicable, and that the amendment will not


be used as an excuse for not having a map.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I can give the hon. Member an absolute assurance that all such assets as he has described would be shown on the map, because it would be reasonably practicable to do so. Only certain rights that would complicate the map and make it more difficult to understand would be affected.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 5

EFFECT OF TRANSFER SCHEMES

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 8, line 18, after 'obligation,', insert 'then—
(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 11.

Mr. Barnett: These amendments deal with the situation which arises where a development corporation whose houses and other land are the subject of a management scheme has reserved to itself under Clause 5(7)(c) certain powers in respect of the property and the district council has entered into a transaction with a third party outside its management powers. At present, Clause 5(8) provides that the new town corporation is bound by the transaction as though it had been entered into by the council as its agent. These amendments provide that the corporation shall be entitled to be indemnified by the district council in respect of any loss incurred by reason of the corporations's being so bound by a transaction entered into by the district council outside its powers.
We have been considering further the effect of Clause 5(8), which provides that where a new town corporation's property is managed by a district council under management arrangements in a transfer scheme and a person enters into a transaction with the district council relating to a power, right, liability or obligation reserved to the new town corporation under Clause 5(7)(c), if that person believes with reasonable cause that the district council has such a power or right the council shall be taken to have entered

into the transaction as the corporation's agent. The effect of this provision is that a third party who does not know about the reservation will not suffer any detrimental effect from the unlawful action by the council: the contract will have effect as though it had been entered into by the council acting as agents, and the corporation will be bound by it. Accordingly, any innocent third party will be looked after if a district council should inadvertently exceed its management powers.
However, it has been represented to us by the new towns that it is only right that there should be some kind of statutory protection for the corporations also in these circumstances. This is a reasonable point, and these amendments accordingly provide that a corporation shall be entitled to be indemnified by the district council in respect of any loss incurred by reason of the corporation's being bound by a transaction entered into by the district council outside its powers.

Mr. Michael Morris: I listened carefully to what the Minister said. This is a technical amendment which seems to be primarily concerned with safeguarding the position of third parties and the resultant safeguarding also of the development corporations over actions of district councils. Insofar as that is the position, clearly the change is to be welcomed because safeguards are needed. Will a district auditor be involved in a situation where the provisions would have to be invoked, because it appears that that could happen in respect of actions of a district council? I raise that matter for the record now rather than in the hope of getting an immediate answer from the Minister. Perhaps he will clarify the rôle of the district auditor by writing to me afterwards. Presumably the auditor would be involved at some stage.

Mr. Guy Barnett: It is difficult to describe the situation in which the clause would have to be invoked, but I think that it would soon become clear to a new town corporation it such a situation arose. So often in these circumstances one is legislating for some future eventuality that it may he difficult to describe precisely. I shall be glad to write to the hon. Member on the point that he has raised and give him any information I can.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 8, line 20, after "agent" insert
; and
(b) the corporation shall be entitled to be indemnified by the council for any loss suffered by the corporation as a result of their being taken, by virtue of paragraph (a) above, to be a principal in respect of any transaction".—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 7

DECISION NOT TO REQUIRE TRANSFER SCHEME

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 9, line 34, leave out "and" and insert "or".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 13.

Mr. Barnett: These are drafting amendments designed to remove any doubt as to whether there might be an inconsistency between Clause 7(c) and Clause 2(3). Under Clause 2(3), the new town corporation or a district council whose area includes any part of the designated area may initiate consultations where the area of the new town was first designated more than 15 years ago but the Secretary of State has not issued directions under Clause 2(1). The intention of Clause 7(c) is that where the Secretary of State decides, after consultations have been held under Clause 2, not to require a transfer scheme to be prepared, either party should be able to initiate consultations, in the same way as under Clause 2(3) after three years have elapsed from that decision. As drafted Clause 7(c) refers to
the corporation and the council of any district
having the right to request renewed consultations about the possibility of transfer This could be thought to be open to the interpretation that the corporation and district council can only make such a request jointly. This amendment makes it clear that the right is exactly the same as in Clause 2(3).

Mr. Michael Morris: We very much welcome the separation. There was an element of confusion and it is correct that it should be crystal clear that either party can make the request. To that

extent we very much welcome the clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 9, line 37 leave out 'requests' and insert 'a request'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 9

GRANTS TO DISTRICT COUNCILS

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 16, leave out 'an undue' and insert 'a'.
Hon. Members who served on Standing Committee H will remember the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), or in which he played a considerable part, and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) also played a prominent part. As I have said, two amendments to Clause 9 were unfortunately declared out of order because the Money Resolution was too narrow.
It was the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) that triggered off my rethinking of the situation. She argued that if the Secretary of State were to have the possibility of intervening when an undue financial burden was placed upon the district council by virtue of a transfer of housing and housing related assets, she would like to know what a due burden was.
I found that question a little difficult to answer. I have spent some time considering the possibilities. A number of alternatives were suggested. I thought that the hon. Member for Aylesbury developed cold feet towards the end about the possible repercussions of his own amendment. I must admit that I felt a little that way myself. There were all sorts of difficulties. The insertion of the words "increased burden" would have produced many difficulties. In the end it seemed that the best way, bearing in mind the unanswerable question of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield, was to introduce an amendment to remove the word "undue", and to say that the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, should intervene where there was a financial burden


which in his opinion warranted his intervention.
I hope that hon. Members will welcome the deletion of a word that was, to say the least, causing some anxiety. However, I know that they will want me to say a good deal more about the circumstances in which the Secretary of State is likely to use his discretion to pay grants under the clause.
At the time of transfer the housing account will be in balance. The existing rent income, plus subsidies, plus any grant being paid under Section 42 of the New Towns Act 1965, will cover the costs of loan charges, management and maintenance. Subsidies will remain constant under the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975, and the payment in respect of loan charges will also remain constant. That leaves income from rents and expenditure on management and maintenance, all of which will, in the natural course of events, change over the years following transfer, and the grant formerly payable to the development corporation under Section 42 will cease, as I told the hon. Member for Aylesbury, when the property becomes the responsibility of the district council.
I think it is only right to emphasise our intention that the Exchequer assistance in lieu of Section 42 grant that we are proposing in the clause will have the purpose of helping the council in circumstances where it could otherwise keep the account balanced only by excessive increases in rents or rates. If it appears that the council could keep the account balanced without any rate fund contribution, provided it followed reasonable policies in regard to rents, management and maintenance, there will be no necessity for a Government grant. The Government surely cannot protect the ratepayers against the consequences of the council's deciding, for example, on increases in management and maintenance expenditure without a review of rents, so depriving itself of the chance of deriving any additional income from that source. It must be for the council itself to decide how it wishes to finance additional expenditure on housing, and contributions.
We must not lose sight of the fact—I regard this as a very important plus

from the point of view of the district council—that the merging of the two housing stocks may enable the council to reduce its rate fund contribution. This would happen if reasonable rent policies adopted by the council provided an income more than sufficient to cover the increased management and maintenance expenditure on the transferred stock and to replace the amount at present received by corporations by way of Section 42 grant. The surplus so created would go towards reducing the deficit on the council's existing stock. This is the familiar phenomenon of older housing built at lower costs yielding a surplus to cross-subsidise the new housing. Where a district council's own housing is newer than the housing stock being transferred to it, there will be opportunities for cross-subsidisation of this nature, and this must work to the benefit of the ratepayers in the district.
In considering the phasing out of the transitional grant it will be right to look at the housing revenue accounts of the new town and the receiving district at the time of transfer, and to base the arrangements on the figures then available. But we do not expect the four commission towns to receive any Section 42 grant in this financial year except, of course, in respect of rebates.
7.45 p.m.
Decisions made by the local authority about rents, maintenance and management will be the important factor in the state of the housing revenue account of the combined stock. Looking further ahead, changes in the subsidy régime, following the housing finance review, may well be of far greater significance. The decision for the local authority is whether it wants to manage the whole public sector housing rented sector in its area on the same terms as local housing authorities are similarly managing their housing stock.
Generally speaking, housing is a service which, with the exception of inner London, has required very little rate fund support over the years. It has generally been the case that the combination of reasonable rents and Exchequer subsidies has met all the costs. Thus, thus whether it wishes to make rate fund


it is most unlikely that any new town local authority to which a transfer is envisaged over the next few years will find itself forced by circumstances to make an increased rate fund contribution, except for that required towards rent rebates.
It is worth recognising that the acquisition by local authorities of good postwar housing on outstanding loan debt terms compares favourably with alternatives open to other local authorities. I made this point strongly in Committee and I think it is worth making again. For the four commission towns, annual loan charges, net of subsidy, averaged last year about £110 per dwelling. For Stevenage and Harlow the figure was about £160 per dwelling. But loan charges, net of subsidy, on new council dwellings, which are costing about £11,000 each, on average, amount to about £400 per dwelling. The comparable figure for authorities such as the London boroughs acquiring tenanted property from private landlords is about £300 per year, and that includes the cost of initial repairs and improvements.
Another comparison is with potential sale values. If sold to sitting tenants with a 20 per cent. discount—a figure that we have heard so much about today—the houses would fetch, on average, about £7,000 each, which is equivalent to about £650 per year when interest and subsidy are recalculated. I mention that to demonstrate that the transfer terms for the first generation new towns enable the local authorities to increase their housing stock at capital costs of from one-third to one-half of the true capital cost. It is with that in mind that I ask the House to approach the argument in favour of some transitional financial support by the taxpayer at large for the inhabitants of local authorities to whom new town housing is being transferred.

Mr. Michael Morris: This is probably one of the most important amendments to the Bill. I think that the experience of the majority of new towns in their relationships with county councils is that the agreement that there should not be an undue burden is not a happy one in the sense that there have been extensive wranglings with the Treasury as to exactly what the burden is and how much of it is undue and how much

of it is due. How much a county can get out of the Treasury to meet the added burden that it faces has become almost an annual auction. Therefore, to that extent I welcome the removal of the word "undue" and the fact that it is no longer qualified.
We accept that the four commission towns will gain financially on the transfer. The problem comes with the newer new towns at the time when transfer is made. That is why the amendment is important. I suggest that the figure will not be £11,000 or £12,000. I checked the figures with Northampton this afternoon, and the current cost is about £15,000. I accept that the average is about £11,000 or £12,000, but there are examples in my area where the discounted sale price is about £8,000 on older property. That suggests that there would be a burden. Therefore, it is important that that situation should be covered.
A further point is that, because we shall be getting younger people in new towns, they of necessity will cost society more in terms of all the necessary provisions for young families. That will cause a burden partly on the district and partly on the county. It is important that that burden be covered.
There is a further element which the amendment will help. It is the practice of development corporations to include in their provisions, for which they get a grant from the Government, probably more facilities than are common in many district councils. Some district councils have been extremely frugal and over time have been extremely careful about the facilities that they have provided. They have been assisted by the fact that, as they are older communities. charities and other bodies have often been able to make provision for a number of quasi-social needs. We accept that when a new town is created that historic infrastructure is not provided by the charities or, indeed, by the private sector and that, therefore, the public sector must provide it. If the grant is strictly adhered to, some of the provisions will become a bit suspect. It would probably be clearer if they were covered by a separate grant payment rather than left in the clouded area of whether they come under the subsidies or not.
We welcome the amendment. It represents progress towards the view that we,


supported by at least three of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, put forward. We shall be coming to another amendment which in some ways is associated with this one. Therefore, I shall reserve judgement on it until we come to it.

Mr. Newens: I welcome the amendment. My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) referred to the debate in Committee on this matter. I think that hon. Members on both sides expressed their concern about the possibility of a local authority becoming responsible for heavy increases in costs arising from the transferred properties. I feared that danger and was one of those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred who expressed that view in Committee. If transfer results in heavy increased costs falling upon new towns, many new town residents will feel that they have been made the victims of a scheme that was presented to them as being to their advantage.
Many people in new towns have the same attitude towards the Government as one of Homer's characters had towards the Greeks—"Beware of the Greeks when they come bearing gifts." Some new town residents feel that they should beware of any Government who hand over new town assets to them. I am sure that that suspicion is totally unjustified as long as my right hon. Friend is the Minister. However, the amendment, if carried, will help to set their fears at rest.
I do not conceal the fact that I should have preferred the word "increased" to be included. Nevertheless, I am prepared to settle for "undue". I still consider that the clause leaves more discretion in the hands of the Minister than I should wish. However, I believe that the amendment goes a considerable way towards what many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel ought to be done. Accordingly, I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing this change which will be in the interests of new town residents as a whole.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 19, leave out
'determined by him with the consent of the Treasury'
and insert 'of seven years'.
This amendment, which follows on from the earlier amendment, is concerned with removing the discretion of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, in connivance, to restrict the period over which they will give this grant to meet the new burden.
The important element is that a district council must of necessity plan ahead. The majority of councils are encouraged by the Department of the Environment to plan ahead for five years. They arc getting increasingly better at financial planning. We shall see what happens as a result of the Secretary of State's exhortations to the local councils. However, with the setting up of the consultative committee, we all hope that they will be brought back to their budgets.
If we ask local authorities to plan their expenditure and forecasts better and to stick to those forecasts, we owe it to those authorities which take on the financial burden of new towns to indicate for how long they are likely to get a grant. If not, and if the figures are substantial—they may be very substantial in some cases—it will cause chaos to their financial planning. In any event, if the grant is removed, even with 12 month's notice—there is no guarantee that would happen—the burden will then fall on either council rents or the ratepayers. In either case it would be unfair.
The right hon. Gentleman may ask why we have settled on seven years rather than any other period. There is no scientific basis for the seven years. As the majority of district councils are working on a five-year forecast, seven years seemed a satisfactory basis on which to conclude it without it becoming an unending drain on the Treasury's resources.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who has been fairly generous on other amendments, will welcome this amendment in the spirit in which it has been moved.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I am relieved by the hon. Gentleman's speech in one respect, at any rate—his explanation of the period of seven years. I was rather worried about that. I then remembered that seven years had a kind of mystical or religious significance—well before the Bible, of course. There were seven lean years and seven fat years. They had Labour Governments even in those days. There was Leah. It was Rachel who was promised to Jacob, but he had to wait seven years, and then he found that after that time he was foisted off with Leah. That was the Tory régime. We are now told that it was a mystical figure, and I am delighted to hear it.
I deal with the minor technical point first. I shall not make a technical point, but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman what he really meant, because it makes rather more sense if what I am about to propose is what he meant. The effect of what he says is that the Secretary of State makes up his mind whether to give a grant—I note the interest of Basildon, Hemel Hempstead, Harlow and other places—to the district councils for a period of seven years. The Secretary of State makes his mind up flat, and says "The righteous shall receive a seven-year grant and the others shall receive nothing at all." If that is what is intended, even the spirit, in any sense whatever, would be totally rejected by the local authorities, and by me and everyone else I know, because it would be too much of a responsibility even for a Secretary of State.
I assume that what the hon. Gentleman means is "up to a maximum of seven years." If that is so, as a basis that is much more sensible.
I seemed to get the impression from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), when we were talking about the Money Resolution, that he was trying to get a slight paring down on what he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State might be up to between them. It is not a minimum period; it is a maximum.

Mr. Raison: I should have thought that the words of our amendment, which would read, roughly, "may make grants for a period of seven years", implied quite clearly that the seven years was a

maximum, and that it did not have to be seven years but might be up to seven.

Mr. Silkin: I was not making a point; I merely wanted to be absolutely clear. That is what I thought the Opposition meant. It would be easy to redraft the amendment, which gives the Secretary of State the one power, to say "Yes, you can have a grant for seven years, or not all." However, we are debating the substance and not the drafting. I wanted to make certain that that was so.
What this comes to is that the Opposition say "Forget the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury. You, Secretary of State, have to make up your mind whether you give a grant to a district council. You can do it for only up to seven years. You must not do it beyond that. You make up your own mind without the Treasury coming into it."
In Committee I was asked for how long I thought one would need to give such a grant. My reply was that I thought that it would be between one and five years. However, I am not infallible, curious as that may seem, and it may be that I am wrong. That was why I wanted an indeterminate figure. However, I think that in giving the period of one to five years I was showing where I thought the probability, on the best advice I could get, might be.
Would it really be fair if the period in Redditch, say, were eight years, to limit the Secretary of State to seven years? For the want of one year, would the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) really penalise the ratepayers of Redditch? I do not believe that he would do so. If I were still in my present position and if he were still the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch, would he not be coming to me at Question Time and saying "Why do you not alter the law? Redditch is suffering."

Mr. Hal Miller: If the transfer is not to take place until about 15 years after original designation, does not the Minister consider that the transfer should not be effected until the town has reached a reasonable maturity, so that it would be possible after a further period to get rid of special factors that previously operated to make the grant necessary?

Mr. Silkin: It may be so in the case of Redditch. I mentioned Redditch merely because it was a handy illustration, as I was looking at the hon. Gentleman. However, it may not necessarily be a second-generation town about which we are talking; it might be a third-generation town. There may be other new towns. The question depends on whether they have newer housing. That is not so in every case. There may be other cases. There are some new towns that might very well finish in less than the 15-year period. I do not particularly want to mention names at present, but there are some that might very well do it, either because their housing has gone ahead at such a speed that they have achieved a target ahead of when they might have done that, or because the town is not intended to be very large. There are these factors.
Opposition Members are not, therefore, being altogether realistic when they try to bind the Government to this biblical period of seven years because they want a particular set period. It is much better looked at pragmatically and empirically and treated on that level.
I come now to the most extraordinary suggestion that the Opposition have made during these debates. There have been some rather curious suggestions, as we know from the previous Division. What I find odd is that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), both by the amendment and by his speech, was saying that he was trusting me and my successors, of either party, to go right ahead and made up our own minds, without the consent of the Treasury. For a party that is forever telling us that we are supposed to cut public expenditure, that seems a rather curiously open-ended commitment. Any spending Minister is delighted if he can have as much as he likes to spend, because he has his policies and he wants them inaugurated. If he can get as much as he wants, that is marvellous. If one offers spending Ministers open cheques, one finds that they are all human and that there is so much that they want to do. However, life is not like that. Much as one would like the opportunity to go ahead without the Treasury's consent, or without even consulting the Treasury—that requirement is removed by the amendment—that is not realistic.
If the amendment were to become part of the Bill and if I or my successors, in any transfer of housing assets, were to say "Splendid. I shall give X New Town District Council the grant for seven years, and I have not bothered to say a word to the Chancellor of the Exchequer because I do not have to", the first persons to attack me and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be Opposition Members. I would not blame them.
We must be realistic. Whoever may be involved, the matter will be handled competently and on the basis of a reasonable look at the situation and at what are reasonable rents and reasonable charges. No one will go mad on this matter, because, frankly, the money is badly needed. All that we want to do is to provide a safety net for those authorities that otherwise might find the burden too much for them, having behaved properly in every possible way. If we are to do that, however, I beg hon. Members not to put the shutter down on the time question. We simply do not know. Hon. Members really must not be so rigid or doctrinaire about this matter. For Heaven's sake, let us be realistic about it. We should have to consult the Treasury and we should have to have the Treasury's consent.

Mr. Michael Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has answered the amendment. It is right to place on the record the danger which all of us who represent new towns see because society has asked the old towns to take on the burden of new towns. We should not forget that, when a new town is attached to an old one, one is asking the original society to undertake an enormous transformation and upheaval. That is asking a lot. There might be a particular crisis at a point of time and it is all too easy for a Treasury Minister to make a broad cut and chop off the grant there and then. As a result, those societies which have undertaken this burden are left high and dry.
In as far as the Government will make a grant, of course we understand that in the end the Treasury has a say. It is fair to say that it is within a fairly large budget, and if the grants were held it is perfectly possible for cutbacks to be made in other areas. We are dealing with only 29, and at one point in time


all 29 are unlikely to be on the go. The figures involved are unlikely to be that substantial.
There may be occasions when we might not wish to lock in a new town completely, and, in the final analysis, the Treasury must have the ultimate regard to that. I think it was right for us to put down this amendment in order to get on the record firmly and clearly that where a transfer takes place and there is a burden, only in the final resort should that grant be removed by the Treasury. I hope, as a result of the discussions we have had, that a Chancellor of the Exchequer will think warily before removing that grant and, indeed, that a Secretary of State will fight extremely hard to ensure that those grants are not removed because of the financial crisis.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 10

INFORMATION FOR OCCUPIERS ABOUT PROPOSED OF FINAL SCHEMES, ETC

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 11, line 35, at end insert—
'(3) As soon as practicable after a transfer scheme is approved or made by the Secretary of State any district council to whom an interest in land is transferred by the scheme or by whom any land is to be managed in pursuance of management arrangements included in the scheme shall publish in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area of the new town a notice which—

(a) states that the scheme has been approved or made and the date on which it was approved or made, and
(b) specifies at least one place in that area where a document describing the scheme's provisions and identifying the property affected by the scheme or arrangements can be inspected.'

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) will recall that in Committee he moved an amendment which would provide for advertisements to appear in newspapers where transfer schemes were being undertaken. Hon. Members on the Committee, and I hope the House, will also be aware that in the Bill itself there is a provision for individual notices to be given to occupiers of

any property affected by a transfer scheme as to the manner in which they are to be affected. I agree that there should be some public notification of a transfer scheme, and it is in response to the hon. Gentleman's amendment that we are now bringing forward this amendment to the Bill.
The hon. Member's own amendment had certain drafting difficulties which, I think, we have avoided in this one. As I indicated in Committee, there are precedents in other legislation for advertisements in local newspapers where action by a corporation or authority affects the ownership or the use of land. We agree that this is a valuable way of bringing a transfer scheme to the attention of people living in a new town. The amendment is straightforward and self-explanatory, and I commend it to the House.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for having taken this matter away from the Committee and coming before the House with this amendment. It goes a long way to meeting the point which we made in Committee.
The only point I would wish to make is that we still have not succeeded in getting consultation for the residents of new towns who are affected. We do not have any means of searching out their views. My own new town has developed a residents' association of quite considerable extent, and it was hoping that there would have been means for consulting it about these proposals, but nothing is laid down in the procedure.
I do not wish to carp at the manner in which the Under-Secretary of State met his undertaking. We are most grateful to him and we are happy to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 12

PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. Raison: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 13, line 18, at end insert:
'(8) Local authorities in making appointments arising from a transfer scheme shall have regard to the need for equal consideration to be given to new towns and local authority staff'.


This amendment asks that the staff of the new town development corporations who might be transferred with the housing assets themselves should have equal consideration when the question arises of who is to manage those assets. We are asking that they should get equal treatment with the local authority staff. The amendment raises an important point, which we talked about in Committee. The fact is that the development corporation staff will be moving over to new employers. They are the local authorities and, naturally, they will have the interest of their own staff at heart. In almost all cases their own staff will be, in a sense, in situ. They will be holding points already. It is possible that when decisions are made about staffing and about the management of the houses that have been transferred, the staff who work for the development corporation will be at a serious disadvantage.
The one thing that we do not want to do is to have any kind of duplication of staff or a proliferation of over-staffing. I do not want to suggest that new town staff should necessarily expect to receive jobs when the transfer takes place. As I said in Committee, I believe that many of the people who work for the new towns are not the sort of people who are looking for security of tenure. They want to do a job and, when it is finished, they are quite prepared to move on and do another job. Another point made in Committee, which I would repeat, is that I hope that the special skills that many of them have will be able to be used in completely different fields. It is possible that they will move on to help solve the problems of the inner cities, or perhaps work in an overseas country.
I believe that the Department of the Environment has set up an organisation called BUDSU, which is a sensible way of cashing in on the staff's expertise in town development and enabling them to be employed in other countries. I am not trying to suggest that all the development corporation staff should be engaged automatically. Nevertheless, I think the House will agree that they should get fair treatment.
When I raised this point in Committee, I said:
It would be wrong if it became the normal practice for the local authority officer to get the job.

I asked the Government to consider the matter. The Minister said:
I recognise the importance of that matter, but I am not at the moment in a position to deal with it. This is a new point to me, although I recognise its force. I suggest that we should consider it between now and Report."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 18th May 1976; c. 251.]
This amendment gives the House and the Government a chance to consider the point that there should be a formal statutory safeguard entitling development corporation staff to equal consideration when housing assets are transferred. I hope that the Minister will feel that we have made a reasonable case. I look forward to his reply with interest.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has told us that we had a considerable debate on this matter in Committee. I recognise today with some amusement that what he sought in Committee was a fair crack of the whip—a phrase which has particular significance at the moment—for the staff of new town corporations.
I think that we all share the objectives which the hon. Member outlined. Obviously, one wants to ensure that people who have given service to new towns, many of them with special skills relevant to the new town in which they have served, should have a fair crack of the whip. Nevertheless, I was interested in what he said about the fact that a high proportion of those who worked for the corporations do not see themselves in precisely the same light as local government servants.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned BUDSU. Even though I, too, cannot remember what those initials stand for, I know that it is a very good thing. This country has built up an enormous amount of expertise and knowledge, and many who have worked for the corporations will naturally want to exploit those talents and make them available to other countries which can benefit from them.
However, as we have already explained, the Staff Advisory Committee is giving priority to the question of ring fences in recruitment; it is consulting various interested parties urgently in an effort to find a fair and generally acceptable arrangement. There is little doubt that


the principle of the amendment is close to the thinking of everyone on this subject and that the Staff Advisory Committee sees it as one of the principles guiding its work in recruitment policies and procedures. I have no doubt that this principle will be reflected in the detailed arrangements to be published in regulations and in any guidance issued.
Our objective must be to restrict redundancies in development corporations to the minimum. Local government generally has a part to play in this, in addition to the more detailed provisions which will operate between parties to a transfer scheme.
The trouble with the amendment, as so often with an attempt to legislate in this way, is that it has certain consequences of which the hon. Member should be aware. In the first place, the amendment is so vague as to open the way to considerable argument about exactly what "equal consideration" is. Of course we accept the need to see that there is reasonably equal consideration between those who work for a local authority and those who work for a new town corporation, but once one starts legislating one gets into trouble.
The proposition that this should be made mandatory suggests that in the last resort an individual or a group could seek recourse to the courts for an injunction. Any such action might jeopardise the proper exercise of the functions of the district council and could lead to even greater uncertainty, not only for the staff already in post or expecting to take up appointments but also for the tenants of the houses to be transferred.
There are other good reasons for rejecting the amendment. For instance, for the reasons that I have given, among others, the amendment could actually be to the detriment of the staff of new town corporations. In asking the House to reject the amendment we do so because we believe that in practice that would be to the advantage of these staff who rely on the regulations which will be made and on the ring fence procedures which we expect the Staff Advisory Committee to propose after full consultation with the interested parties.
I will, of course, draw the attention of the advisory committee to what the hon.

Member has said, but it would not be sensible or satisfactory to solve a real problem—one which we accept—by this kind of amendment. It would be better to rely on the work of the advisory committee and on the good sense of both parties to see that the best use is made of the expertise at present shown by the staff of the corporations.

Mr. Raison: May I press the Minister a little further? I accept that this may be a faulty amendment in certain respects. I am even prepared to accept that we occasionally produce faulty amendments. But the essence of what the Minister said does not seem justified.
First, if we can put something into regulations, we should be able to put it into statute if we really want to. I do see how one can draft a regulation which is somehow subtler than, or different from, a statute. Secondly, when the Minister queries the possibility of the notion behind "equal consideration", he completely overlooks the fact that there is nowadays a good deal of legislation providing that those of different colours and of different sexes should be treated equally when applying for jobs. So even if these are not the best words for expressing it, the notion of equal consideration is well and truly enshrined on our statute book.
Even if he thinks that the amendment is defective, would not the Minister be prepared once more, perhaps before the Bill goes to the other place, to consider the possibility that what we are after might be perfectly well expressed in statutory form?

Mr. Guy Barnett: If I may speak again with the permission of the House, the hon. Member is right to pursue these points, but there are two answers to them. First, I believe it to be right for the House to wait for the kind of recommendations which come from the Staff Advisory Committee. It may make recommendations to my right hon. Friend of which some could be incorporated in regulations. So we do not feel that this is the right moment, even if we thought it desirable, to include in the Bill a provision to give some kind of firm regulation of this kind.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the advantage of regulations


over incorporating a provision in the body of the statute. Regulations are changeable, therefore, as situations change, so regulations can be altered. We should be making a permanent provision in an Act which would cover the position for some time and could become out-dated. That provision would be difficult to amend, whereas regulations are much more easily amendable.

Mr. Raison: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I am sceptical about what the Minister said. I accept that regulations are more easily changed over the passage of time, but these are not recurring circumstances. We are talking about a point in time when responsibility for housing moves from the development corporation to the local authority. I cannot envisage changes which may be required to alter the principle which we are trying to establish. I hope the Minister will have another look at this.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 14

INCREASE IN MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 14, line 5, leave out 'eleven' and insert 'nine'.
The horse has been over this course before—I do not know whether it is a Trojan horse. We are concerned about the number of development boards and the quality of representation on them. In the Chilean navy, as the size of the fleet decreased the number of admirals increased. Here, we are transferring the assets of development corporations to local authorities and at the same time providing for an increase in the number of members on the boards of corporations.
In Committee the Minister said that it would be helpful to associate local councils affected by the proposals more closely with the work of the boards, and that an increase in the number of members on the board was a suitable means of ensuring co-operation. In making that suggestion he was running counter to the

recommendations of the chairmen of the new town corporations, who discussed this matter, among others, in the report that they submitted to the Minister on the consultation document of February 1975. They said that co-operation would not necessarily be improved, let alone assured, by the appointment to the boards of local authority representatives. They insisted that what was necessary was breadth of experience.
Representations have been made to hon. Members who represent new towns about the need for industrial interests to be represented on the boards. I have written to the Minister suggesting that appointments from both sides of industry might be made to the boards, and I hope that he will consider that suggestion.
We have heard no convincing reason why it is thought necessary to increase the number of board members. What will be the function of the development corporations once the housing assets have been transferred? The corporations expect to have a strictly limited life. I hope that the increase in the number of board members is not designed merely to give the corporations a temporary reassurance that their life will be prolonged. Will the Minister tell us what he considers the life expectancy of the new towns to be after this major surgery, and why increased membership is necessary for the reduced function of the board?

Mr. Eric Moonman: The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) is that we are trying to get an adequate balance on the boards of new towns. There is no conflict here. To say that there should be a breadth of experience on the board of a new town corporation is not incompatible with a good representation from local authorities. I am not surprised that the chairmen of the new town corporations are happy with the present position. We are trying to get a balance. New towns are still a substantial business. I do not believe that a small board is necessarily adequate to deal with the wide range of problems that may arise and the consultations that may be necessary.
My own new town of Basildon, at 31st March 1975, had a net capital advance of over £100 million. I could give similar examples from other new


towns which confirm the enormous financial burden under which they operate. If the Minister feels that it is appropriate to have that increase in the composition of the board his case is made out, because of the scale of the new towns and the enormous operation and development that they are expected to perform. If the Opposition are determined to have industrial representation as well as the co-operation of local authorities, the number cannot be less than that which the Minister suggests.
The issue is not about the precise number. I would have thought that the Opposition would learn not to base their case on figures. The figure of 11 gives us the opportunity to include all the interests on the board. I cannot understand the difficulty, because we are surely hoping to have the balance that we all want.

Mr. Guy Barnett: We have moved a little way since the Committee, because at that time an amendment was moved by an Opposition hon. Member to delete the whole of the clause. The Opposition simply want to reduce the number from 11 to 9. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) used a curious argument about the Chilean navy and how the number of admirals increased as the navy decreased. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) said, new towns are big business and there is an argument in some cases for having larger new town corporations. The limit of seven ordinary members was set by the 1946 New Towns Act. At that time Aycliffe, which was designated in 1947, had an original target of 15,000 population, Bracknell of 25,000, Corby of 40,000, and Stevenage of 60,000. Today Aycliffe has a target population of 45,000, Bracknell of 60,000, Corby of 80,000 and Stevenage of over 100,000. The analogy of the Chilean navy will not hold water, any more, probably, than the Chilean navy does.
The provision is permissive and it is not intended suddenly to increase the size of the corporations to 11 in every case. One argument which weighed with us in considering the size of the board was that advanced for the situation which exists in, for example, the Central Lancashire New Town, which involves three district councils and the Lancashire County Council.

To achieve a realistic representation of people from district councils one must raise the permissive limit. In view of the transfer, this is an appropriate moment to introduce that provision. Whatever the Opposition say, there is an argument for having representatives of district councils to facilitate the transfer.

Mr. Raison: I appreciate the need to allow local authorities to be represented. The Minister has quoted the case of the Central Lancashire New Town. It is reasonable to argue that there should be two extra places, which is what our amendment seeks to achieve, but there is no need for four. Normally one can have county and district representation within the existing size of membership. To accommodate all three districts, only two extra places are needed. In what situation will there be a need for four extra places?

Mr. Barnett: I am glad to have an explanation for the number the Opposition chose. The answer in the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned is that we would want in that situation to achieve a party balance in the representation, and the hon. Gentleman would probably agree. It might not be possible to do that except by increasing the size. It is also suggested that it might be useful to have representatives from industry, the trade unions or a number of other spheres which might be useful to a new town corporation.
All that we are asking for is a certain degree of flexibility. The clause does not propose a massive increase in the size of every corporation, but simply gives the Secretary of State a flexibility that he has not had.

Mr. Hal Miller: The Minister tempts me when he talks of realistic representation. The position of my own development corporation board is far from realistic, as a result of the flush of political appointments which the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend hastened to make on assuming office. But I was not trying to add unnecessarily to the extent of those patronage appointments.
The Minister tempted me a great deal further when he spoke of the need to bring relevant experience on to the boards. Some of the appointees we have seen have zero idea of how to deal with


the big business commitments to which the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) referred.

Mr. John Silkin: The Opposition did it, too.

Mr. Miller: We can swop punches if the right hon. Gentleman wants to. I have been in correspondence with him on the subject of my hoard. I am not necessarily saying that local councillors should be appointed. Their appointment does not necessarily add to the strength which is needed to deal with the large sums involved.
The point I was making was that the assets were being reduced by the transfer of the housing assets. I had hoped that the Minister would deal with my specific point about how long it was envisaged the corporation would last after the transfer of those assets. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to say, and I do not wish to detain the House.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
There are some Bills which are inevitably, whether one likes it or not, milestones in social and legislative history. This Bill, which I am delighted to say has not taken very long in legislative time to reach its Third Reading, is one of those milestones.
The Bill fulfils a promise made in the Second Reading debate on the original Bill, in 1946, when the future of new towns was suggested at a time when very few people thought they had a future. To talk then of a time when they would have large populations and be district councils of today's size and power seemed visionary. But to say that the time would come when their assets would go from development corporations to those local authorities was more than visionary; it was regarded as mildly insane. But it was right.
What we are celebrating today is the growing up not only of the new town movement but of the new towns themselves—the adulthood of most of the first-

generation new towns and the promise that the rather tough, strong teenagers of the second and third generation will in turn reach their maturity.
What lies behind this process is the faith of us all in local democratic control. It has its ups and downs, but it is still the oldest democratic institution in our country—older even than the Palace of Westminster.
One of the more striking factors about the way in which this Bill has proceeded has been the amount of constructive criticism that has been advanced. Of course we have had our party banter, but constructive criticism has been a great feature of our discussions. I accept that the Bill is in better shape than when it began its Second Reading only a few weeks ago. That it has been improved and made a better Bill is very much due to the strong part played in our proceedings by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members. It has been a Bill in which the Government have not had to tell their own supporters to be quiet; on the contrary, everybody concerned has been constructive, and it has been a useful and interesting process.
In sending the Bill to another place, we can look forward to some newer refinements which perhaps we, in our wisdom, may have omitted to take into account. We have also the slightly frightening knowledge that some new town chairmen are members of another place and may have strong views about what is to happen.
I particularly have in mind the provisions relating to staff where it is possible that the advice that is emerging from the Staff Advisory Committee might suggest that amendments could usefully be considered in another place.
In the light of views expressed by members of a small group of officials from local authorities, new towns, and my Department, who have been examining methods of determining the payments calling to be made under Clause 8(2), we are examining the drafting of the clause. The Government recognise that the Bill has led to many questions relating to the future of new towns. I intend to stimulate debate on the scope for the use of a new town type of machinery for securing development objectives where this would


not be inconsistent with the powers and responsibilities of local authorities.
I notice that in this respect the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is not very far away from my own views on this matter. There is also a need to decide on the long-term arrangements for the management of the industrial and commercial assets that have been created, and are being created by the new town development corporations.
I wish to emphasise that we see a significant rôle for the Commission for the New Towns in the management of those assets, although the commission will not, perhaps, be exactly the same as that which existed in the past. It will not have a housing function in future except in the exercise of tenancy nomination rights for a limited period of time. But as further development corporations are wound up, we envisage that the assets will be managed in the national interest by the commission. It will indeed be a new-style commission.
Although most of the first-generation towns were in the South-East, others have been established in the West Midlands, the North-West and the North-East. Therefore, we must look at the organisation of the overall task and at the constitution of the commission, bearing in mind the regional location of the assets that it will manage. Associated with this will be an examination of that management rôle, perhaps in the context of the gradual transfer of the freehold reversionary interest in new town assets, to the local authority in which those assets are situated.
The House will recall that I mentioned this on Second Reading and drew attention to the possibilities put forward in the consultation document, "New Towns in England and Wales", which we published at the end of 1974. In that document we discussed the principle of the sharing of the benefits of public investment in the new town programme. The basic philosophy that we set out then remains the same today—that these benefits should be shared between the local community, the public in general, through the Exchequer, and the ongoing new town programme as a whole.
At the same time, we must recognise that there will have to be a programme of winding-up of development corpora

tions once their housing has been transferred and any residual house building programme by the corporations comes to an end. But we are talking of 29 towns over a period of many years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be sitting in the position he now occupies, as a good, healthy 150-year-old, when the programme comes to an end.
Properly integrated policies, designed to maximise the benefits from public investment in our new towns, to secure an orderly transition from a new town to a normal town, and to ensure that the problems that will arise for those employed in new towns are handled sensibly and sensitively, will take time to develop and establish. I look forward to further legislation in due course, for there is still a great deal to be done.
As I said on Second Reading, the present Bill represents a return to one of the great principles of the 1946 Act. It was always intended that the houses provided by development corporations should be transferred to local authorities in the areas in which the houses were. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Raison: I first thank the Minister for his kind words. I think it is true to say that the Committee was a constructive one, and I am delighted to know that the Minister feels that we have between us managed to improve the Bill.
I have always made it clear that we accept the principle of the Bill. We do so because, like the Minister, we believe in local democracy. Indeed, it is a rather nice thought when we know that he is talking not about handing over houses from new town development corporations to post-1974 district councils but about handing them over to the Witenagemot, to judge by what he said when he talked of the inequity of local government in this country. At least local authorities did not increase their numbers in the way in which the Minister proposes to increase the number of corporations.
We have argued about the sale of houses in new towns. As it is the convention—sometimes honoured as much in the breach as in the observance—that one does not talk of sins of omission but only of sins of commission, I will not re-open that particular controversy at this stage.


I hope that the transfer will go ahead as planned, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that it represents an important step in the light of the new town movement.
I believe that the main problems will probably prove to be financial. We have had quite a bit of discussion about these at odd moments, even on the Money Resolution this afternoon. We have to make sure that both parties get a fair deal out of this.
The stress has naturally been on getting a fair deal for the district councils which will inherit these houses. I say this because, quite properly, the local authorities concerned have been fairly strongly represented in the Committee. But we also have to get a fair deal for the taxpayer. Public money from the Exchequer has financed the new towns, and, therefore, it is right to say quite firmly that they, too, have an interest. We as taxpayers also have an interest, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State under the Bill to uphold it.
We have, as the Minister implied, to watch the Bill fairly carefully after it has become an Act, because the passage of it will not necessarily be easy in all respects. We shall certainly keep a beady eye on it, though not an obstructive eye.
The Minister was right to say that the progress of the new towns is developing, that things are changing and that we are in a different situation. At the moment, we are coming to the end of the period when we thought in terms of launching new towns. I have the feeling that the Minister may not live to see Silkingrad built, much as he might like to. The change in the demographic projections plus the belief that resources should now be directed to other hard-pressed areas lead people to argue that further new towns are not to be contemplated for some time to come. These are important considerations which we have to bear in mind, and there is a developing argument.
But we accept the principle of the Bill, though we have argued about specific points and there was one matter on which the two sides of the House had a sharp divergence of opinion. But I hope that the Bill achieves its objectives.
I conclude my remarks by thanking my hon. Friends who have been so helpful

to me and who made such an important contribution to our proceedings in Committee, and I reiterate the essential point in the Minister's Third Reading speech.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Newens: I express the sense of satisfaction which many of the people with whom I have had the privilege to work, especially in the Labour movement, will feel at the completion of this Bill's passage through the House. It is a measure which gives legislative form to a number of objectives which such people have had in view ever since new towns were conceived; namely, the democratic control of housing and associated assets. I can remember attending many meetings and being involved in many campaigns and in the preparation of many documents dealing with these matters.
The establishment of the New Towns Commission and the purpose marked out for it by the Conservative Government of the late 1950s represented a departure from the original objectives, and this Bill restores the position envisaged by my right hon. Friend's father when he introduced the New Towns Bill in 1946.
The transfer of new town housing assets to local authorities represents a very considerable challenge to those authorities, but I have faith that, by and large, they will rise to it. I believe that it is right that housing assets should be democratically controlled. But the fact that the Bill has now completed its passage through this House and, we hope, will eventually go on the statute book will not relieve many of us of the necessity to press very hard for local authorities to carry out what we believe to be the real purpose behind this measure.
As my right hon. Friend said, the people concerned with the new towns movement have also been concerned with the problem of industrial and commercial assets. I happen to believe that these, too, should be democratically controlled. I hope to see a Bill on this matter in due course, and my right hon. Friend will be aware of the strength of conviction on this matter which exists in the quarters to which I have referred. We hope that in due course he will turn his mind to seeing how, in the form which he now envisages, he can provide


for the democratic control of those assets as well as the housing assets.
That is for the future, however. The Bill will be regarded as an important measure. Most certainly it will be by my constituents in Harlow and by people in other new towns. It provides the basis for a smooth and sensible transfer of the assets with which we have been concerned and from which considerable advantages will flow.
I think that in future a great many people will recognise the tremendous achievement of the development corporations and the new town staffs, and it would be quite wrong if I failed to take advantage of this opportunity to place on the record my own appreciation, and that of many people of all political parties, of the tremendous dedication these people have shown.
We have now arrived at the stage where we must move on to a different state of affairs, and the Bill provides for that. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his drive in getting this measure brought forward. I take great pleasure in welcoming the Bill.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Moonman: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) in welcoming the Third Reading. In a sense it has required a considerable amount of patience from many of us in the Labour movement. We have heard much about this Bill's pedigree, but it has travelled a long road and there have been considerable disappointments over the course of Labour Party conferences and special delegatory meetings. To that extent some of us feel that this is not merely a Third Reading, but almost a domestic affair. In saying that, I do not mean to be critical of the Opposition, but I think it is domestic because of the way in which new towns were enshrined in our thinking and strategy of extending and refurbishing the old communities of this country, while cultivating new areas at the same time.
This has been a considerable development, but if it were only that it would be a pity. I am proud of the fact that the Labour party pioneered new towns, but on the Sub-Committee of the Select

Committee on Expenditure there was no disagreement between hon. Members on both sides on the question of new towns. This is not only a reflection of the good sense of both sides; it shows, perhaps, that the new towns have come of age. We shall reach a point at which we shall stop talking about new towns.
The other thing that I would suggest is perhaps a matter of graduation. We have talked about the importance of development corporation boards on more than one occasion. I support the idea of increasing the size of development corporation boards, not because I want to create a bulkier structure, which would cost more money, but because one of the most unfortunate problems of the past few years is that there has been no clarity of communication between the policy makers of the development corporations and the community. I am not sure that by increasing the size of the board we shall improve communication immediately, but I have faith that those who serve on the board, if they are truly representative of the various sides of industry and of political parties, will be able to improve communication. I believe that that will happen because of the penetration of those people who will report back.
It is not enough to have an agency doing an important job in the development of new towns. We have to recognise the terriffic communication that emerges in an area in which there is suddenly not a local authority or a local councillor with whom one can deal and ask for advice and instruction—in which decisions are being made, instead, by an agency. This is a very difficult concept. I hope that throughout the continuing existence of new towns we shall see an improvement of communication.
It has been said on more than one occasion that it is not only big business that is involved in new towns, but large numbers of people. We are talking about nearly 2·5 million people. The fact that the House is not completely full tonight is no reflection on new towns, or any indication of a lack of interest in them; it is simply a result of the extraordinary things that we do through the course of the night.
The new towns will have to be taken much more seriously by the two major


parties, if only for the reason that they are about an integrated housing, transport and employment policy, and that is sufficient reason for no longer treating them as cranks or something of a hybrid nature, to be left only to Members of Parliament with new town constituencies. We must ensure that the Government are aware that this issue crosses party lines and involves integrated policy making.
Critical problems will still remain in spite of the Bill. They will require close care and attention. New towns, more than any other form of development, are involved in keeping pace, for example, with the social services. A population moves into a new town and perhaps finds jobs there, but it is the gaps that exist in the social services, because of the enormous numbers of people involved, that create the problem. These people suddenly move from a city with formal traditional social services into a new environment. The same is true of education and cultural activities.
I have said enough to indicate the sort of problems encountered in the new towns—problems that are basically about keeping pace with the people. Because we do not keep pace we have problems, alarms and anxieties, and that is one of the things that we must continue to look at, whatever we do and whatever the Act of Parliament. We must watch closely the way in which job opportunities are provided. It would be distressing to many of us who care so much about the new towns if they became merely commuting areas sending workers back into the city centres.
The figures that I have seen suggest that the numbers of people in the inner ring of London new towns who return to London to work is far too high. That means that somehow, at some point, we have failed. That is not what new towns are about. There will always be a number of people from new towns who commute to the city centres, but I am

talking about the situation in which far too high a proportion of people who live in new towns do not work there. There are distressing signs that the numbers of people who commute back into the cities are building up.

Mr. Hal Miller: In my new town there is cross-commuting, and that is the pattern that we expect to develop. We do not want a new town to be a goldfish bowl that is entirely self-contained. Surely new towns must be linked with the rest of society?

Mr. Moonman: This is basically a question of balance. It is serious if 55 per cent. of the people in the inner ring of new towns are getting their jobs outside those towns. Of course, these people must not live in a goldfish bowl. Naturally, the second generation will get secretarial jobs in London because young girls want better opportunities and the so-called excitement of getting away from the new towns. But there has to be a balance.
In talking about new towns we have a terrific responsibility. The Bill is an important step. I must say that many of my hon. Friends and I respect enormously the work that has been done by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government. This is not an instance of a Minister getting through a Bill because it happens to be related to something that the party may or may not have promised, or something that may or may not have appeared in a Labour Party statement. My right hon. Friend has a personal interest, and he has shown a real determination to ensure that we achieved the balanced community for which many of us have fought. This is a remarkable occasion, and one worthy of the Labour movement.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ARMED FORCES (recommitted) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

Clause 1

DURATION OF SERVICES ACTS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I draw your attention to the fact that a number of my hon. Friends and myself submitted amendments to the Bill. Even at this late stage we ask you to reconsider the possibility of those amendments being called. They concern the right of members of the Armed Forces to join a trade union and the setting up of effective collective bargaining machinery. We feel strongly about the amendments and we should very much appreciate it if you would reconsider the possibility of them being called.

The Deputy Chairman: I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on this occasion. As the Committee will notice, the selection of amendments stands in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is the Chairman who has made the selection. The Bill was printed before Whitsun, over a month ago. I see no reason for matters being left to such a late stage that we dealt only with starred amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

INCREASED POWERS OF SUMMARY PUNISHMENT

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ron Thomas: The clause concerns the summary punishment of both soldiers and airmen by their commanding

officers. Therefore, it is concerned with discipline. The discipline that is applied to members of the Armed Forces, just as to those outside, is as much concerned with morale as with having adequate opportunity to deal with the many grievances that in industry we should describe as the disputes that arise.
As an ex-member of the Royal Navy, an ex-able seaman—[Interruption.] Hello, sailor! I was an able seaman, lower deck, in the Royal Navy. I soon realised that there were no recognised forms of procedure, no representational systems via trade union, and no sense of consultation between what we used to describe as the pigs who ate in the wardrooms and those who did all the work and prepared their meals. There was no sort of communication. It was for that reason that my hon. Friends and I—many more of my hon. Friends would have supported the amendments had I had time to collect their names—decided to make a simple request regarding discipline as it applies to this clause or any other clauses.
9.15 p.m.
We are dealing here with summary punishment and discipline. We suggest that if there were the right, as is laid down in the Employment Protection Act, for members of the Armed Forces to join a trade union, if there were the setting up of collective bargaining machinery, as there is throughout the bulk of British industry—I think that the Government are to be congratulated on that—and appeals machinery and procedures for avoiding disputes—all that goes with trade union recognition—the exercise of discipline under this and other clauses would be carried out in a totally different fashion from what is suggested in this legislation.
In my judgment, to deny members of the Armed Forces the right that most workers in British industry have is to treat them as second-class citizens.
Many members of the Armed Forces are highly skilled technicians. In many REME establishments they work side by side with civilians who are members of well-organised trade unions. Members of the Armed Forces can therefore see the difference between the summary discipline that appears in this clause and other clauses and the rights of their fellow workers in organised trade unions to have issues dealt with through proper negotiating machinery.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to intervene, but the clause makes no reference to trade unions. I have looked through the Bill very carefully, and I find that there is nothing in it that relates to trade unions. Therefore, I regret that I have to rule the hon. Gentleman out of order regarding any references to trade unions. If he can show me a reference to trade unions, I shall be prepared to entertain his argument.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Sir Myer. We are debating Clause 5, which deals with summary punishment.

The Deputy Chairman: That is correct.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I submit that it is in order for an hon. Member to give reasons why he cannot support the inclusion of Clause 5 as it stands and to allude to the fact that if certain things were happening he might be prepared to support it.

The Deputy Chairman: The point is that the hon. Member appeared to be going on to deal with amendments that have not been selected.

Mr. Thomas: rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I must be allowed to put my point of view. I shall allow hon. Members to raise points of order if they wish.

Mr. Thomas: rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat while I rule on the point of order that has been raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I make it clear at the outset that I shall not allow a general debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because there is no reference in the Bill to trade unions. We must consider what is in the Bill. I shall allow a passing reference to trade unions, but not a detailed debate on trade union membership inside the Armed Forces.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. You will recall that Clause 5 refers to a period of detention. It seems to me that that is the punishment to

which we are addressing ourselves when we allude to the way in which a member of the Armed Forces may seek to exercise certain rights. If a worker in the industrial sector is wrongfully dismissed, he can make representations under the Employment Protection Act through his trade union. I think that is relevant. I submit that there should be some way in which a member of the Armed Forces can appeal against detention and bring in his trade union representative to resubmit his case.

The Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Does the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) wish to continue, or has he finished?

Mr. Thomas: The clause gives a commanding officer the right to punish a soldier or an airman by putting him in detention for up to 60 days under a procedure in which the airman or soldier has no involvement in any sense, whereas in British industry, as has been said, any form of disciplinary procedure would be worked out between the trade union and the employer concerned. There would he procedures to deal with grievances and disputes.
However, as a former ordinary seaman in the Royal Navy, I know that we have a situation in which there are no such procedures whatsoever, and no one to whom one can look when one is having to put up with quite intolerable conditions. There is no shop steward to represent a person and no trade union to back him up in any way.
In that kind of situation we are being asked to support an amendment that suggests that a commanding officer should have the right unilaterally to put someone in detention for up to 60 days under a procedure in which that person has not been involved to any extent, and in which there is no appeal. Neither are soldiers represented in any way. If practically any worker in British industry finds himself in difficulty, he can call upon his shop steward, often his full-time union officer, and then the whole legal department of his union, to represent him.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was surprised to learn that my hon. Friend had been a seaman. May I take it that if the clause were amended


by the Government on the lines that he has suggested, which the Government could do at a later stage, such a case as that of the naval officer who was accused of having a homosexual relationship—a case that went to the courts and cost hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer's money—might not take place? I am assuming that such a naval officer could have taken the matter to his trade union, which would no doubt have been called the Naval Officers' Trade Union, which could have discussed the matter then and resolved it, and saved the tax-papers a lot of money. Is my hon. Friend out to save the taxpayers' money?

Mr. Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Had the authorities in this place selected the other amendments that we have tabled, it would have become apparent that we were asking that the Government cease treating soldiers and airmen as second-rate citizens by giving them those rights set out in the Employment Protection Act, and that the trade unions, such as mine, ASTMS, and the Transport and General Workers' Union, should be able to sit down with those concerned and work out procedures for avoiding disputes, appeals procedures, and so on. In respect of this Clause, we offered an amendment. It is on the Notice Paper, but unfortunately it is starred. In my ignorance, I thought that if there was a star against it, it was bound to be called. Indeed, all we ask for, in terms of the new clause, is that an individual who has to go before his commanding officer—who may be able to incarcerate him for up to 60 days—should have the right of representation and the right to appeal against the decision of that commanding officer.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am surprised. I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's point. As I understand it, what he is asking for is that British soldiers, airmen and seamen should have the same privileges as the Germans. Is he suggesting that British Service men should be treated as well as the Germans are treated?

Mr. Frank Allaun: Before my hon. Friend replies to that question, I want to ask him a similar question. I am genuinely asking for information—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. It would be only fair to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), who is addressing the House on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, and giving reasons why he does not think it ought to be supported, not to confuse him. I presume that he knows that he has the right to vote against the motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill. However, he is not a juggler, and if three or four hon. Members start to throw questions and interventions at him he will lose sight of the naval officer and his homosexual act.

Mr. Allaun: rose—

Mr. Thomas: rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I think we ought to allow the hon. Gentleman to deal with one intervention at a time.

Mr. Thomas: I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) was not trying to make a pro-Market point, because I know what his position is on the Market. My understanding is that the armed forces of six of the member countries of NATO have some form of trade union organisation and a further two provide for representative machinery. The countries are Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, West Germany, Norway and Denmark. Sweden, which is outside NATO, allows trade union organisation and the kind of representative machinery that we are seeking in terms of this clause.
The clause gives commanding officers a considerable increase in power. My own trade union submitted a document to the Committee—

Mr. Thorne: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can tell me the reasons behind the Government's thinking for increasing these detention provisions from 28 days to 60 days?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that we will allow the Minister to tell us himself.

Mr. Thomas: A brief provided by my own trade union—ASTMS—mentioned a reply given in the Official Report on 10th December, which suggests that the provision will allow the number of courts-martial to be reduced. If that is the


case it really is something that I and many of my hon. Friends just cannot support. To say to commanding officers "We shall increase your powers simply to cut down the number of courts-martial" is quite outrageous.
We have to bear in mind that, as far as the commanding officer is concerned, there is no representation and no right of appeal, whereas under a court-martial there is. I should make it quite clear that many of us on the Government side of the House can see no justification for giving a commanding officer these increased powers in a situation in which sailors, airmen and soldiers are being punished as part of a procedure over which they have no control. They are not represented in any way, and there is no right of appeal.
The document prepared by my trade union summed it up in a couple of sentences when it stated:
It is current good practice in labour relations elsewhere for trade unions to be involved in the drawing up of disciplinary and appeals procedures, and this practice could profitably be extended to the armed forces. A mutually agreed disciplinary procedure would safeguard service persons against possible unfair and arbtirary decisions of commanding officers and would at the same time protect the officers themselves in the exercise of their powers.
Unless the Government can give me some convincing reason why they feel it is necessary to give commanding officers these increased powers, I for one will attempt to divide the House and vote against the clause.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I support the opposition to the clause expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). I hope that the Minister will give a detailed explanation of the baffling decision to increase from 28 days to 60 days the punishment which can be awarded by the commanding officer. I cannot believe that the reason was the one which he quoted in Hansard. Of course we are all in favour of reducing the number of courts-martial, but to do so by giving greater arbitrary power to one god-like person is a departure from every principle of British justice. I am sure that in the Armed Forces, as in Civvy Street, the need is to keep the prison population

to the minimum. This sort of decision can only make that more difficult.
Many of those who are punished feel that those who impose justice are out of touch with them. This applies to judges and barristers. But that breach is nowhere as great as the breach in the Army between the officer class and the rank and file. Discrimination is at its highest there. One of the greatest barriers to productivity and harmony in industry is discrimination. This is accentuated in the Forces. Too many members of the officer class still come from a public school background. They live in different messes and different conditions. Everything is done to separate them from the rank and file.
It is, therefore, inevitable that the ordinary Service man believes that these people are not aware of his problems. They cannot understand the situation in a barrack room because they do not live there. Ordinary Service men must feel that those who live in officers' quarters, often with servants, live in another world. Even hon. Members probably cannot appreciate the class-ridden structure to which officers belong. The clause should not increase the powers of those people over ordinary mortals like ourselves.
The individual commanding officer may try to impose justice as he sees it, but there is often an educational gap as well. The private feels that he has no one to defend him. I will not follow the trade union argument of my hon. Friend, but if he were represented by a trade union official as happens at industrial tribunals, he would feel that he has some expert assistance. However good the individual officer may be in spite of his class background, he cannot apply justice in this sort of area.
However fallible it is, at least at a court-martial a record is kept and appeal can be made to higher authority. The clause deals with a closed procedure in which justice is dispensed arbitrarily by a god-like figure.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether in West Germany, where a trade union for Service men exists, such a punishment of 60 days can be inflicted without the Service man being represented?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right. We do not all advocate the procedures of


NATO on every occasion, but in at least six NATO countries a Service man can have that form of representation.
The main criterion of British justice is that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. With this closed relationship between the commanding officer and the rank-and-file Service man on trial, the concept of British justice being seen to be done is not fulfilled. I oppose the clause.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol. North-West (Mr. Thomas), I declare an interest as being formerly No. 2738994 LAC Ashton of the RAF. I am sure that we shall have a sympathetic hearing from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, who in 1971 put up a spirited, vigorous and determined fight to prevent the rum ration being taken away from the Navy.
The advertisements shown on television which put forward the idea that the Army is a professional job give rise to concern about discipline in the Armed Forces. The old days of short back and sides, shiny boots, painting the coal black and the stones white are gone. There is a recent report in the Daily Telegraph—the newspaper with a large circulation among members of the Armed Forces, particularly the officer class—with the headline:
Lieutenant treated me like a slave, says ship's steward".
The report goes on to say:
A 30-year old Royal Navy steward told a court martial … that he was the bloody slave of Lieutenant William Henke. He said he was called out late at night to make salads and cook steaks for the Leiutenant's girl friend. 'He told me I was his personal steward on call for all his little whims and what not'"—
whatever they may be.
The steward said:
I pleaded not guilty in order to expose Lieutenant Henke for what he is.
Had this clause been in operation, the steward would have been dealt with without the benefit of the presence of the Press.
On this ship several stewards had asked for transfers. The steward had been called on to clean the officers' toilet three or four times a day. The steward alleged

that the officer urinated on a seat and he was made to clear up. That was at a late night party at which the lieutenant was entertaining girl friends. This case had to be brought before a court-martial to get publicity. Had the clause become the law of the land the case would not have seen the light of day.
We see advertisements in the newspapers about the kind of life which young men can expect to lead in the Forces. The picture that is painted is totally different from the life that conscripts of 20 years ago could expect. The rank and file have a strong desire to have the right to be represented by trade union officials at disciplinary hearings.
During the Labour Party conference soldiers in civilian dress surreptitiously push things into our hands. If they do that outside the Winter Gardens they are taking a great chance. They often make allegations, tell us what is happening, and ask us to take a matter up and protest because they feel themselves to be victims.
A rank-and-file soldier who feels that he has not had a fair trial at a disciplinary hearing can appeal and have what is called a redress of grievance. In the past anyone who was put in jankers first went before the beak and got 14 days or reported to the guard room four times a day. One could appeal, but what was the use of that because one had already done 14 days? If one was wrongly convicted one could not get the 14 days back and there was no form of compensation, although there might be an apology.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that many members of the Armed Forces are also our constituents who in many cases are advised not to approach their Member of Parliament. Sometimes action is taken to prohibit them from making approaches to us on the problems they face in the Armed Forces. I have had a recent experience of a member of the Armed Forces who wrote to me asking me to drop his case because of the possible repercussions.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is correct. It is quite common to find that subtle pressures are put on soldiers, sailors or airmen who report things to newspapers. They often find that their chances of promotion are blocked.
There is a need to look at discipline, and that will not come from the Colonel Blimps of this world. It must come from the House. The heads of the Armed Forces must realise that things have changed. The security guard at Vauxhall who manhandled workers in excess of his duties has been moved to another job because people were not prepared to work with him. A fire brigade chief had to be moved to another department because he insisted on treating his men like a sergeant-major. Things are changing. We no longer live in the days of Earl Haig when his officers could impose No. 1 punishment and tie men to the wheels of a gun. There are many tales of what happens in detention centres and the glasshouse. There is certainly a need for an inquiry into disciplinary procedures and a need for members of the Armed Forces to have proper redress for their grievances.
Complaints against the police are now to be looked at in a different way. If it is good enough for the police, surely it is good enough for the Armed Forces. They should have a right to appeal to an outside body and to an independent judge and jury. They should have someone to assist them. They should not have to go before their superiors, where the chances of appealing are almost nonexistent. I hope that the Minister will propose something different.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: It is a matter of personal regret that I lack the distinguished Army service experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who made a compelling case for introducing independent trade union representation for members of the Services.
I was struck that the rear-admiral was the lowest rank serving on the Review Body responsible for assessing increases in Service pay. It was not surprising that that body recommended the highest increases for officers and the lowest increases for the ranks. An independent element should be introduced into both discipline and pay.
I read the report of the Select Committee on the Bill. That was a foolish activity, because it disturbed my peace of mind and affected the tranquillity with which I intended to go into the Lobby with the Government. I was surprised and

distressed to discover from the Select Committee that when a man is detained he loses his pay for the number of days he serves detention. A witness said that men preferred to be detained than fined because when detained they still had their comforts whereas when fined they had to go about normal life with no money. When a Service man is detained and loses his pay, what provision is made for his family? [HON. MEMBERS: "Look at the evidence."] I have looked through the evidence for the past hour, and I did not find the answer.
9.45 p.m.
Quite a number of questions were put to witnesses asking what would happen to a person's family when he was fined. It was suggested that the fine would be moderated up to three-fifths of the pay and that in other cases there might be social security payments, but that would not apply where the Service man was abroad.
When we face such a clause, which will double the amount of detention that can be imposed by commanding officers, it is right that the House should ask to be assured that suitable provision is made for the family. My hon. Friend the Minister may reply that, as a number of witnesses said, the commanding officer knows the circumstances of each case, and would probably not detain a man when that would cause hardship. I am doubtful about the wisdom of commanding officers having to know the domestic circumstances of the men under them. In any case, it is not enough for us to rely on that. The Bill applies to all men under the commanding officers' command, and not simply to single men.
I hope that the Minister will give me some reassurance on the matter. If he cannot, it will be with great difficulty that I contemplate doubling the sentence not simply on the Service man but on his wife and children.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) said that there were six armies in NATO which had some degree of trade union representation, a point also made by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts). The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) is an expert on the activities of the armed forces of the Societ Union. I


wonder whether he or any other hon. Member can tell us about trade union activities in the Soviet armed forces.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I gave my ruling. I shall not allow a general discussion on trade unionism in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Goodhart: The point has been raised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you allowed it to pass, that six armies in NATO had some trade union representation. There is no trade union representation in the Warsaw Pact armed forces.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: As the hon. Gentleman does not approve of what goes on in the army of the Soviet Union, as many others do not, why does he seek to have us copy the same practice?

Mr. Goodhart: I merely wondered whether there was such a practice in the Soviet Union and whether anyone there had protested against, for example, the harsh conditions in the Soviet navy that led to a mutiny on a frigate.

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on referendums, and has written a book on them. Would he advocate a referendum in the Armed Forces on this matter?

Mr. Goodhart: I think that I should be prepared to see that. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) referred to conditions in the German army. The army in NATO with the greatest experience of this question is Holland's, which has had associations going back for about 90 years. One trade union there, which is Left Wing, is in conflict with the Minister of Defence, a man so Left Wing that he could not hope to be a member of a Labour Government in this country. He would certainly be sitting below the Gangway if he were a Member of this House. He is in direct conflict with that association, and is trying to get it suppressed. There are 10 other associations in the Dutch armed forces that have a form of trade union—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not paying attention to the ruling I gave. I said that I

would allow only fleeting reference to this matter. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to extend his argument.

Mr. Goodhart: I was just about to complete my remarks, Sir Myer. Labour Members must bear in mind that 10 associations in Holland protested at the defence cuts which the Dutch Government were trying to impose.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): It is right that in debating Service discipline the House should turn its attention to the many points that have been raised, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). I, too, have had the pleasure of serving in the Royal Navy and I know from first-hand experience the problems that confront Service men.
Everybody will acknowledge that Service men today have certain rights and privileges that are not enjoyed by the private sector of British industry or by the nationalised industries and their employees. Any Service man who feels aggrieved about any matter affecting his Service life is at liberty to write to his Member of Parliament—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends may laugh, but they have not had the benefit of even the brief experience that I have now enjoyed as one of the defence ministerial team. In those few weeks I have received letters from Service men; indeed, I had similar letters before I became a Minister. No Service man is debarred from writing to his Member of Parliament.

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend said that members of the Armed Forces have rights that are not available to workers in the private or public sectors—namely, that they are able to write to their Member of Parliament. Why is it that workers in the public and private sector are not allowed to get in touch with their parliamentary representatives?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The impatience of many of my hon. Friends is leading them to intervene before I have had a chance to conclude my argument on a particular point. I was about to say that Service men had the right to communicate with their Members of Parliament so that their parliamentary representative can demand,


by Parliamentary Question or in the form of a debate, that the Minister concerned should account to Parliament for complaints made. That is not open to workers employed in the private sector, nor is it open to those who are employed in the nationalised industries.

Mr. Frank Allaun: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but I hope that I shall be allowed to develop one argument at a time. That is a right possessed by Service men, and it gives them an advantage over employees in industry.

Mr. Frank Allaun: It is true, as the Minister says, that a Service man can approach his Member of Parliament, but does my hon. Friend not admit that the Service man is at a tremendous disadvantage compared with workers in industry, in that if a worker is unjustly treated he or she can leave the job, whereas a Service man or woman cannot?

Mr. Wellbeloved: That is not absolutely correct, because Service men can buy themselves out. I shall not go into that argument now. The other advantage possessed by Service men and not by industrial workers is that they have a right to appeal to the Defence Council, which is the supreme body in the Armed Forces. That is available to Service men if they go through the procedures.
Many of my hon. Friends obviously have strong reservations about the general thrust of the proposals to increase the powers of summary punishment by commanding officers. Their views deserve to be treated with respect and seriousness, and I shall try to deal with them.
I first reassure the House that both the Ministry of Defence and the Select Committee which has considered the Bill have taken very great care indeed to try to protect the position of Service men The extension of the powers now proposed should produce a quicker, less cumbersome and less expensive form of trial for disciplinary offences.
If those who doubt that view were to avail themselves of the many opportunities which arise for hon. Members to take part in parliamentary visits to the Armed Forces, they too would be reassured. They would be able to discuss

with Service men in the messes their attitudes towards summary powers.
I ought to be careful, because I was about to say I was only once nearly subject to a court-martial, but let me say that whenever I was up before the commanding officer for any minor indiscretion I was asked "Do you wish to take my award, my punishment?" Every commanding officer is obliged to say that. Those who realise the higher penalties which can be imposed by a court-martial usually reply "Yes, I accept your judgment". From the Service man's point of view it is invariably a judgment which is based on a much more intimate knowledge of him, and is invariably a punishment carried out within his present environment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: I repeat my invitation to my hon. Friends who have doubts about this matter to take advantage of the many opportunities available to them for visits to the Armed Forces.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my hon. Friend explain to me the significance of 28 days in relation to summary procedures before the commanding officer or a court-martial? If it is the case that an offence which would warrant over 28 days is serious enough to go to court-martial, why should a serious offence now be laid with the commanding officer?

Mr. Wellbeloved: This is a very serious point and I shall deal with it specifically in a few moments, if my hon. Friend will wait.

Mr. Norman Buchan: My hon. Friend said that in the past the procedure has been useful in cutting down the number of courts-martial, in that a smaller sentence was awarded by the commanding officer. My hon. Friend is now proposing to increase the number of days. Therefore, surely Service men will automatically refuse the commanding officer's punishment.

Mr. Wellbeloved: That is very similar to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I shall deal with both points when I come to the appropriate part of


my speech, to the convenience of everybody.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the opportunities to visit defence establishments. Does he remember that when we were together on a visit to Cyprus in 1971 we found that there was great discontent because the other peace-keeping forces from different NATO countries had very different methods of discipline from ours?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I remember that visit very clearly, but my recollection is not entirely consistent with that of my hon. Friend.
If I may press on, it is my contention to the House that the proposals are in line with the tendency in civil courts for cases to be taken, in the interests of speed—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, the Armed Forces Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Snape.]

Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I hope that the motion that the House has just passed will not encourage too many of my hon. Friends to intervene in the remaining hour or two of my remarks.
My hon. Friends, being concerned, as they are, that these new proposals should not result in any injustice to Service men, will be relieved to know that I share their concern, as do my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. One fact needs to be borne in mind, namely, that a good 90 per cent. of those accused at courts-martial in fact already plead guilty, and at least that proportion will be reflected in the cases that can now fall to be dealt with by commanding officers.
We believe that there will be real advantages from the point of view of the accused Service man himself, and the Select Committee that considered these proposals most carefully was also persuaded that there was a real preference in the Services—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends may laugh. Before they take that attitude, they should try to acquaint themselves more thoroughly with the views of men who serve.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), who takes a genuine interest in defence affairs, to avail himself of the next opportunity on the All-Party Whip announcing a visit to an Armed Forces establishment, to take it up, to meet the men and to talk to them informally in their messes. He will find that he has no cause to laugh when I make the claim that the majority of the men in the Armed Forces will welcome these proposals which provide that, for swifter justice, summary procedures are to be used in a number of cases where courts-martial are now the rule and where this relatively slower and more cumbersome procedure is seen to be unnecessarily heavy-handed and unnecessarily long-drawn out from the point of view of the Service men. The Government would not have put forward these proposals for increased powers to be given to commanding officers if they had not been satisfied about the protection that will be given to the accused Service man.
I come now to a point that may have escaped the notice of many of my hon. Friends, which is the basic right of an accused Service man coming before his commanding officer subject to these new powers. He still has the right to opt for a court-martial. The soldier, airman or naval rating need not accept his commanding officer's exercise of these new summary powers if he believes that the old system, with the more limited powers, is better. The accused Service man can still avail himself of the old system and exercise his right to opt for a court-martial.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Under the old system, if the maximum punishment was 28 days, the feeling of the accused man was that if he took a court-martial he would be entering the 28 days-plus league as a possible punishment. Now, if he takes a court-martial, he will believe that he is entering the 60 days-plus league.

Mr. Wellbeloved: That does not necessarily follow, because there are other safeguards that I now wish to put to my hon. Friends, which have been considered by both the Department and the Select Committee.
Legal advice on the case also can be obtained by the commanding officer through the exercise of these powers. This


is not necessarily required at the moment. Higher authority must have been granted to the individual commanding officer to give permission to use these powers. They do not automatically become the right of every commanding officer. The extended powers are to be used only where the case is not disputed, the material facts alleged are true or the facts constitute the charge brought. The proposals for these safeguards are written into them.
The Select Committee in its consideration shared our view. It took the view that the powers and safeguards were right, and it mentioned particularly that it was satisfied that these changes should be made. If a Select Committee has gone into great detail, considered the matter and taken evidence, we are entitled to take some cognizance of that view.
On the question of trade unions, I will refer to this very briefly, but I must make the point that Service men are already entitled to join a civilian union or association appropriate to their trades or specialisations. There is no bar in military law or in Queen's Regulations which denies the Service man the right to belong to a trade union. Indeed, Service men are encouraged to join trade unions as a preparation for their return to civilian life. The Services have negotiated with a wide range of civilian trade unions and professional bodies to obtain their recognition that prescribed levels of Service training and experience should qualify Service men for membership. My hon. Friends have started with a slight misconception if they believe that a Service man is barred from trade union membership because of military law.

Mr. George Rodgers: Is the Minister suggesting that Service men can actually take advantage of trade union membership and officials if they are involved in any dispute?

Mr. Wellbeloved: At a stage where a man is being prepared for leaving the Services and returning to civilian life, I doubt very much if we in Government would object to trade union officials meeting that man to assist him into a full understanding of trade union rules.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: I will give way in a moment.
I come to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West when he referred to the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee by a trade union. I deeply regret that this memorandum was submitted on almost the last day of the Select Committee's deliberations, and, therefore, it was not possible to give it the close attention which no doubt it deserved. However, it would be right and proper that if a trade union, or any other body, wishes to make representation to the next Select Committee on military discipline it should send in its memorandum so that the Select Committee can consider it carefully, sensibly, and fairly. If the Select Committee is satisfied with the points raised in the memorandum it will make recommendations to the House.

Mr. Heffer: A little earlier my hon. Friend referred to the witnesses who were brought before the Select Committee. How many of them were even below the rank of sergeant or equivalent in one of the other services? Looking through the list I can see rear-admirals, a major-general, a brigadier, a colonel, a lieutenant-colonel and so on. How can my hon. Friend say that the rank and file of the Army are enthusiastic with these changes when no witnesses were called to express their opinon?

Mr. Wellbeloved: That is a very good point. I am sure that the Whips will have noted my hon. Friend's desire on this matter that the Select Committee should hear the view of ordinary rankers. No doubt when the opportunity presents itself they will invite him to allow his name to go forward to serve on the Select Committee, as did I and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) on previous occasions. Those Select Committees certainly had the benefit of an ordinary seaman and a private soldier to give their views.
This Select Committee visited naval detention quarters and the Military Corrective Training Centre at Colchester to meet and talk to people who are under detention.

Mr. Rob Cryer: My hon. Friend said that the Government encouraged Service men to join trade unions when they were being discharged. But it


is not true, is it, that trade union representatives can be involved in any disciplinary proceedings brought against a soldier?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not think it is true that a trade union representative as such can appear before the courts on behalf of one of his members. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about industrial tribunals?"] I accept the point about industrial tribunals, but I am talking about a court the equivalent of a court-martial. Just as a trade union can provide legal advice and representation, I have no doubt that a Service man who is a member of a trade union can possibly seek the assistance of his union in providing legal representation under the various Service Acts if that is what he wants.

Miss Jo Richardson: I had hoped to be selected as a member of the Select Committee because the nursing services of the WRNS are now included within the full scope of the Naval Discipline Act. I am sure that the Minister will want to ensure that a woman representative is included in the next Select Committee on such a Bill and that representatives of the women's Services should be asked to give evidence and should be encouraged to do so.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I have no objection to that. I share my hon. Friend's desire to see the elimination of sexual discrimination, and it is highly commendable that the WRNS is now being brought into line with the two other women's Services and will now enjoy the benefits which it has been denied for so long.
I have tried to deal with the genuine and serious points that my hon. Friends have raised. I can only repeat that we in the Department have given the most careful consideration to this matter. I know that many of my hon. Friends disagree with me on many issues, but I speak as someone with experience in the Armed Forces on the lower deck and as someone with many years' experience in industry as a shop steward. It would not be my desire to bring before the Committee any measure which I thought detrimental or unjust in any way to Service men, and I do not do so on this occasion.
I commend the clause to the Committee in the certain knowledge that on the examination that I have given it, on the examination that the Select Committee has given it and on the examination that has been given to it throughout the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere, the proposals that it contains are based on a sincere and genuine desire to extend justice and fairness to Service men.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I rise only briefly to give the Minister some help. I am sure that the whole Committee will be grateful to the many Labour Members below the Gangway who have shown this evening an unaccustomed interest in defence matters and have given the Minister an opportunity to set the record straight and, I hope, to enlighten some of them on matters about which they seem to be strangely out of date.
I welcome what the Minister said about visits to Service establishments. Such a visit is taking place tomorrow. I believe that nearly 20 Members of this place and another place are taking part. I am sure that the Minister regrets as much as I do that only three Members from the ranks of the Labour Party will be going.

Mr. Wellbeloved: rose—

Mr. Onslow: There is another defence visit taking place next week. The imbalance between the parties will be practically the same. I can assure Labour Members that the Services resent very much the lack of interest which Government supporters show in the affairs of the Services of the Crown. It is not a matter—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to Clause 5. The clause has nothing to do with visits.

Mr. Onslow: It would not be resented deeply, Sir Myer, if you were to give me as much leeway to cover this point as you were kind enough to give to the Minister.

The Chairman: The occupant of the Chair for the time being is a servant of the House, and the House has laid down certain Standing Orders. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to observe them.

Mr. Onslow: I shall always be anxious to abide by your rulings, Sir Myer. I was merely seeking to follow the remarks made by the Minister, which you regarded as totally in order. Indeed, I think that the whole Committee took that view. In referring to visits, there is no question of any hon. Member having to ingratiate himself with the Whips. Visits

are invitations extended to Conservative and Labour Members quite impartially.
A close study of the clause reveals that it makes no mention of the Navy. It expressly does not apply to the Navy. With great deference, Sir Myer, I think that much of what was said about the Navy was out of order. However, I make no further comment about that as I am happy to abide by your ruling, Sir Myer.
I thank the Minister for what he said about the trouble that the Select Committee took to try to cover all the points which have been sketched in this evening by hon. Members who have had so little time to read the Committee's report. I understand that they are busy people. I understand that it is a terrible business to table amendments in time for a debate. I appreciate the dreadful difficulties in which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) must have found himself. I feel sorry about his union. However, it is a fact that the Committee was sitting in December last year. We deliberated for nearly three months. The Richmond and Barnes constituency Labour Party managed to get a memorandum to us on this subject in good time for it to be considered. I make no corn plaint, because I am sure that the ASTMS had other things on its mind.
I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite should maintain their new-found interest in this matter until the next Select Committee. I am sure that the Select Committee will find Members from the Opposition Benches, which is where hon. Gentlemen opposite will then be sitting, welcome additions to its debates. They will learn a great deal. To judge by what they said tonight, there is no limit to the amount that they could learn if they served on the Select Committee.
I shall gladly offer my support to the Minister if there is a Division. I have no hesitation in saying that the maintenance of discipline in the Armed Forces of the Crown is a matter about which all who serve in them care deeply. What has been said by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway tonight will do the Labour Party no good. I hope that there will be a substantial majority in favour of the retention of this necessary reform in the Bill.

Mr. Mikardo: The one thing of which we can be sure is that whenever the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) intervenes in a debate he will lower the tone of it. Until he rose to make his contribution we were having a serious discussion. The fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force gave way so many times, and with such courtesy, shows that he was taking seriously the very serious arguments which had been put forward. The hon. Member for Woking would succeed in making petty party points in the middle of a requiem mass. There is no subject under the sun which he is capable of treating on its merits.
When I came into the Chamber this evening, the last thing in my mind was to intervene in the debate. I confess at once that I have little knowledge of the Armed Services. Unlike some of my hon. Friends who have had direct experience, the only time in my life that I wore a uniform—it was a long time ago—was, believe it or not, in the Home Guard. In that very worthy, if not altogether serious, establishment, as a result of three years of blind devotion to duty and unquestioning obedience to my officers, I rose to the rank of private.
I was induced to get to my feet by the speech made by the Under-Secretary, because I should like to comment shortly, but seriously, on four points that he made.
The first point was that, as the Select Committee had looked into this matter very carefully and had come to a conclusion, we should not seriously query it. That is a new theory in this place. I was for three years chairman of one of the most important Select Committees of the House. In that period we produced a number of important reports. I am very proud of the fact that those reports were unanimous, although there was all-party representation on the Committee. Not one of those reports was discussed in the House and the Government did not do a blind thing about any single one of them. Therefore, I find it hard to be convinced that a thing is right because a Select Committee says so.

Mr. Wellbeloved: This Select Committee was considering a Bill which had received a Second Reading in the House.

Therefore, it was undertaking a slightly different function from that to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Mikardo: That is right. There is a difference of function. Nevertheless, the basic argument remains that the House does not normally accept something because a Select Committee says so.
The second of the four points of my hon. Friend on which I want to comment is that he says that the proposal to double the penalty that can be inflicted upon a Service man without his having any right of representation or appeal, which can be inflicted unilaterally by deus ex machina, will be an advantage to the Service men themselves. I find that a bit hard to take. Hon. Members should think about it from first principles. I would not consider it to be advantageous to me if an on-the-spot fine which could be inflicted by a policeman were doubled. I would think that the chances were that that would represent a considerable disadvantage.
The third point of my hon. Friend on which I want to comment is this. I took down his words. He said "The majority of the men in the Armed Forces will welcome the change." How does he know? I will make a deal with my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will take steps to find out about this. I am not talking about a referendum or anything like that, but there are these days methods of scientific opinion polling, getting a balanced sample and so on. My hon. Friend could do it on a 4 per cent., a 5 per cent. or a 6 per cent. sample. If he will entrust one of the organisations that are skilled in the operation of collecting opinions by means of a balanced, statistically significant sample, and if the men in the Armed Forces say that they welcome this, I beg him to believe that I will trot into the Lobby behind him without any arrière pensée at all.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, will be put this evening.

Mr. Mikardo: If I may put it to you with the utmost respect, Sir Myer, you are not alone in your desire to get home before midnight. We all share that desire. However, with the utmost respect, the Under-Secretary used it as his major


argument in this debate, and it was manifestly in order because otherwise you, Sir Myer, would not have allowed it—

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding my intervention. I am not objecting to his making reference to what he has just mentioned. I am only pointing out to him the practicability of carrying it out.

Mr. Mikardo: I am not making a reference at all, but doing something much simpler. I am replying to a point that was in order because you allowed it to be made, Sir Myer, and, therefore, the reply must be in order.
What I am saying to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is that if he can establish as a fact what he said, that the majority of the men in the Armed Services will welcome the change, I shall go along with him. I ask only one thing in return. That is that if such a test finds that they do not, he, too, will go by their judgment, as it is on their judgment that he rests.

Mr. John Prescott: My hon. Friend is deploying an argument about ascertaining the genuine will of ordinary ratings. Perhaps I may support his case by pointing out that merchant seamen—I was one for 10 years—suffered under this kind of attitude under the Merchant Shipping Acts until 1970. Recently they have used the Tavistock Institute to find out from seamen themselves whether those who seek to say that they represent them, captains and leaders of industry, really want the fines that have been put in the Bill. The Tavistock report, which has been published for about six months now, has found that there is no necessity or justification for it, and it is certainly not desired by the men.

Mr. Mikardo: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Now the Under-Secretary knows where to go to get the research done, because my hon. Friend has told him.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend is making a most interesting point, with which I have considerable sympathy. I have a difficulty in this respect. The constraints and, indeed, the pressure put upon me to curtail defence expenditure really would not justify me in accepting this extra expenditure on public funds. However, hon. Members, without any

undue cost to public funds, can themselves seek to make their own reasonable judgment of Service opinion by visiting the Services.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend must not tempt me too far. If he does, I shall have to put it as an opinion that the cost of the sort of survey which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) would be a good deal less than all the junketing of MPs which goes on around the Services. The Minister ought not be too worried about cost. He said it would cost too much to find out what Service men think about the clause, but he should not say that without finding out what they actually think.
The Minister said that the procedures of the commanding officer taking action are quicker, less expensive and less cumbersome than a judicial process. Goodness me! What sort of argument is that for a democrat to use? If we applied such a system to the civilian scene and allowed policemen to impose not merely on-the-spot fines but on-the-spot prison sentences we could save a lot of money by getting rid of the courts. That is what he is saying.

Mr. Wellbeloved: If the law, as far as civilians are concerned, allowed on-the spot lines with the absolute right for the person involved to opt to go before a civil court, that might be something which would commend itself to the general public. However, the Armed Forces can opt not to accept these judgments and revert to their previous right to go to court-martial.

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend might be right in saying that this might well commend itself to the public, but we have not adopted such a system except for marginal things like parking offences. I cannot conceive any circumstances in which the British public would stand for on-the-spot detention sentences—no circumstances whatever.
If the object is to be quicker, less expensive and less cumbersome, we could achieve that object not only in the Armed Forces but also in civilian life by abrogating all civil liberties.
There was once a gentleman named Attila who had a system of judgments


which were very quick and inexpensive and not at all cumbersome. There was once a gentleman named Barbarossa who had a system of imposing sentences which was very quick, not at all cumbersome and did not cost any money at all. But this is not something which we are seeking to elucidate.
I think the Minister made the best of a pretty rotten brief. When he reads it tomorrow he will not be very happy with it.

Mr. Nick Budgen: The Minister did not make a distinction between a volunteer force and a conscript force. I believe there must be some relevant distinction so far as disciplinary proceedings and the representation and non-representation of trade unions are concerned.
Surely, when we have a volunteer force people choose to serve under certain conditions. If people are attracted to service in the present volunteer forces, presumably they are attracted to a disciplined and, possibly, an authoritarian way of life.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that we are at the present time changing these conditions from the conditions under which they volunteered? Would we accept that in any other job?

Mr. Budgen: With respect to the hon. Gentleman I think his case would have been stronger when conscription was imposed by law. We now have a volunteer force; that is to say, those who serve in the Forces do so in the knowledge that they are joining as professionals.

Mr. Tom Litterick: They have conditions already.

Mr. Budgen: They have conditions certainly, and we in Parliament must be scrupulous in seeing that those conditions are fair. Conscript forces must take into account the vast variety of characters in our society. There will always be an element in society of natural barrack-room lawyers. As one who is now a lawyer by profession, I must confess to having been a natural barrack-room lawyer when I was one of the last conscripted soldiers.
I understand perfectly the attitudes of those who dislike an authoritarian regime, but those who enter the Services today voluntarily choose a disciplined and authoritarian regime. There is no reason to take into account our natural prejudices on the side of the rebel and the barrack-room lawyer and not take into account the fact that those who join today's specialist, professional and elite Forces do so with a particular cast of mind. They may have a more authoritarian cast of mind than that of the generality of people who were conscripted before 1957.

Mr. Heffer: When I was in the Royal Air Force, I always avoided barrack-room lawyers. I always found that people who took their advice were put on a charge much more quickly than those who avoided them. Having listened to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who is a self-confessed barrack-room lawyer, I believe that that is sound advice. I hope that it was also the experience of other hon. Members.
I should like to draw attention to the memorandum submitted by the Richmond and Barnes constituency Labour Party, objecting to the proposals in Clause 5. It effectively answers the case made by the Minister. This important constituency party saw the lessons to be learned much more quickly than anyone else. It says:
This memorandum argues that the powers of punishment of Commanding Officers of the Army, Royal Marines and Royal Air Force should not be increased as proposed in Clause 5 of the 1975 Armed Forces Bill, and it further contends that the proposed powers of punishment, if implemented:

(a) will remove important legal safeguards from the individual serviceman;
(b) cannot be justified by administrative savings and will further complicate the disciplinary process;
(c) will produce no benefit for the individual serviceman, or his family, by loosening 'stigma";
(d) will be contrary to principles of natural justice."

The whole case is summed up in those four basic points.
The memorandum develops one other point which is directly relevant to what the Minister said. I listened carefully to him, because I believed that there


might be a good case for these provisions. Indeed, I had a slight exchange of opinion earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). He also said that there might be a good case, but I said that I had not heard it yet. He may feel, as I do, that no good case has been put forward. I listened for it, but it did not come.
The argument is that this procedure would be quicker and less expensive. To suggest that the power given to a commanding officer should be increased to allow him to award a period of detention of 60 days instead of 28 days because it would be quicker and less expensive is not a good argument.
The Richmond and Barnes constituency Labour Party has something to say about that:
We feel, however, that the relative complexity of the courts martial procedure exists for sound reasons, whereas the plea of 'administrative savings' has all too often been advanced to justify an erosion of individual liberty.

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for rehearsing this argument. It serves to remind us that the Select Committee had all that evidence before it when it considered the matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we questioned the witnesses who came before us from various walks of civilian and Service life along the lines of the statements he quoted. If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to read the evidence, he will see that we did not dismiss the matter without examination. We went into it thoroughly and were unanimously of the opinion that the Government's proposals should be supported in this case, although not in others. We have changed the Bill considerably.

Mr. Heffer: I am not suggesting that the evidence was not examined. I am saying that it is unfortunate that the sound and serious arguments advanced by the constituency party were not accepted. The list of witnesses in the Select Committee's report does not include any rank-and-file members of the Armed Forces. The witnesses were all officers or civilians. No private, lance-corporal, LAC or able seaman is listed.

Mr. James Lamond: Does my hon. Friend realise how difficult

it would have been for the Select Committee to have heard evidence from privates, LACs and able seamen when there is no trade union or organisation to supply a spokesman and to represent these men at that level? The Select Committee had to listen to rear-admirals and assume that they could speak for the other ranks.

Mr. Heffer: But it is not beyond the bounds of possibility for the Select Committee to visit a Navy base, an Army centre or a Royal Air Force station. Service men read the unit orders every day. They could have been asked in the orders to volunteer to see the Select Committee. Even without a trade union, there are ways and means of doing this.
I ask the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) not to believe that because hon. Members do not always want to go on trips to various places they are not interested in the Armed Forces or other matters with which the House of Commons is concerned. Some of us live in the same streets as do members of the Armed Forces. We know them personally, we speak to them when they come home on leave and well understand their problems. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be more humble in his approach.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: Long before I heard the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) speak on defence in the House, many hon. Members on this side of the House visited our Armed Forces overseas and at home without the hon. Gentleman knowing anything about it. He should be more careful about making global statements about other hon. Members. He has shown his usual ignorance on the subject, as he has on so many others in the past. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. We are discussing whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Member for Woking can shout as much as he likes but he had better be more careful in future before making global statements about hon. Members. I know that hon. Members may not like what I say but they will be told just the same and they will learn to listen to the truth.
The debate is important to those who care about civil liberties—and that involves the Armed Forces. Those in charge of the Forces have, by their record, proved that they care as much for civil liberties as we do. Therefore, there is nothing between us on purpose and principle. It comes down to judgment.
I came to the debate with an open mind knowing that there is room for reform and modernisation in the Armed Forces. It would be silly to have a closed mind. As my hon. Friend for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, a stronger and more convincing case could have been made by the Government which might have led us to agree with them. But that case has not been made, and I urge the Minister to reconsider the Government's attitude to the clause.
When we faced the problem of advising someone who was to be court-martialed in the army the officer who accepted the task of defending the accused would always examine whether the court-martial was inevitable in the first place. Obviously, some cases had to come before a court-martial but in other cases one could gain valuable experience by asking the man concerned why he had not accepted the punishment of his commanding officer. Men do not take such decisions in a lighthearted manner. A number of considerations were usually involved which needed careful examination, as anyone with experience of Service life will understand. Strong reasons must be established for abandoning that procedure, which has served as a safeguard to many in their Service careers. Trust in a particular commanding officer often made a man say "I will leave it to the commanding officer to make the decision." Individual circumstances alter cases. Therefore, we cannot say generally "We can abolish it because that leads to a simplification of the whole process."
Secondly, when a limited power is given to the commanding officer, that power in itself is a considerable safeguard in the cause of justice. We heard very little from my hon. Friend the Minister about this factor of limitation. It was the Government's duty to say something about it when asking for such a fundamental change. It is much easier for someone facing a possible trial to say "I

will leave the decision to you" when he knows that the limitation is there by law and regulation.
Thirdly, if it is a part of modernisation that more power should be given, because the process will be speeded up, I cannot understand why the process should take such a long time when the total number of people in our Armed Forces has been so seriously reduced. After all, we are not now dealing with an Army of 5 million people.
Here I come to the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who made a wholly unrealistic point about the changed nature of the Armed Forces. He must remember that a volunteer Army does not sell its right to natural justice because those in it volunteer to serve, nor are the duties of the House of Commons to see to it that the people serving in the Armed Forces have the same consideration as if it were a conscript Army in any way reduced.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point I made. I concede immediately that it is the duty of the House of Commons to make sure that all the rules of natural justice are applied to any victim of military law. We must make sure that in a wider sense than just natural justice the rules are fair. The only point I was making was that in today's volunteer Forces we are dealing with a more specialist type of person than in the wider context of a conscript Force.

Mr. Mendelson: We understand only too well. There is no wider sense than natural justice. There is natural justice or there is an absence of it.
The case is clearly understood. The best way in which we can service the general cause that everybody has at heart tonight is simple and straightforward. That way is by indicating that there is a strong body of opinion which, whilst in favour of modernisation, is also very much concerned that the essential safeguards should be maintained. The Government have failed to persuade considerable numbers of us that the reform is justified or that they have made a case for it, and we therefore accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) to vote against the clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 54.

Division No. 186
AYES
10.54 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Archer, Peter
Golding, John
Oakes, Gordon


Armstrong, Ernest
Goodhart, Philip
O'Halloran, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Goodhew, Victor
Onslow, Cranley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gourlay, Harry
Owen, Dr David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Graham, Ted
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bates, Alf
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bean, R. E.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Palmer, Arthur


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Park, George


Bishop, E. S.
Hardy, Peter
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Pendry, Tom


Boardman, H.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Penhaligon, David


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hicks, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hooson, Emlyn
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Buchanan, Richard
Huckfield, Les
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Budgen, Nick
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Roper, John


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Carter, Ray
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rowlands, Ted


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sandelson, Neville


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
John, Brynmor
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Concannon, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kimball, Marcus
Small, William


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cronin, John
Le Merchant, Spencer
Stainton, Keith


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Crouch, David
Luard, Evan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Luce, Richard
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davidson, Arthur
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stoddart, David


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Stradling Thomas, J.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McCartney, Hugh
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.


Deakins, Eric
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Macfarlane, Neil
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tinn, James


Dempsey, James
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tomlinson, John


Doig, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Dormand, J. D.
Magee, Bryan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Douglas-Hamilton., Lord James
Mahon, Simon
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Dunn, James A.
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dykes, Hugh
Marquand, David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watkinson, John


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Weatherill, Bernard


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wellbeloved, James


Ewing Harry (Stirling)
Mather, Carol
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
White, James (Pollok)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mayhew, Patrick
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Monro, Hector
Winterton, Nicholas


Ford, Ben
Moonman, Eric
Woodall, Alec


Forrester, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Woof, Robert


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Freud, Clement
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mudd, David
Mr. John Ellis and


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. Peter Snape




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Ash ton, Joe
Corbett, Robin
George, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Cryer, Bob
Grocott, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Heffer, Eric S.


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (Newton)
Hooley, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Clemitson, Ivor
Flannery, Martin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)




Kinnock, Neil
Noble, Mike
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lamond, James
Ovenden, John
Ward, Michael


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Parry, Robert
Watkins, David


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Pavitt, Laurie
Whitehead, Phillip


Litterick, Tom
Prescott, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Loyden, Eddie
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McNamara, Kevin
Roderick, Caerwyn
Young, David (Bolton E)


Madden, Max
Rodgers, George (Chorley)



Maynard, Miss Joan
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mendelson, John
Sedgemore, Brian
Miss Jo Richardson and


Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Stan Thorne


Newens, Stanley

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

POWERS OF COURTS IN RELATION TO JUVENILES

Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 8, line 17, after '(5)', insert—
'(a) of the word "authorised" for the word "provided", and
(b)'.

The Deputy Chairman: With this we may also take Government Amendments Nos. 24, 30 and 34.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The House will be pleased to know that this is a purely drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. David Walder: The Minister will recollect that the clause deals with what those who served on the Committee regarded as a particularly sensitive area, where proposals are set out to deal with juveniles. The difficult problem that the Committee found related to a reception order made overseas which had to be implemented in the United Kingdom.
The obvious problem—if I may put it very much in a shorthand way—was where to send a juvenile in respect of whom a reception order had been made. Should he be sent to what was alleged to be his home county or home town, or to some area where perhaps his relatives lived? The Committee was rightly exercised with this problem. We were

assured that we would be hearing further about the details of the arrangements, about which, I would argue, we must be satisfied before we can properly say that this matter is settled.
The Minister will remember that the Committee's problem was that the Bedfordshire County Council was chosen by the Ministry of Defence as what I might call the reception council. There was correspondence between the DHSS and the council which, in the Committee's view, was somewhat unsatisfactory. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could satisfy us a little more on this area.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. The whole question of juveniles and reception orders was left slightly in the air in the Select Committee. The Select Committee was concerned that there had not been formal consultation with Bedfordshire County Council over the proposal that children made the subject of reception orders should first go to an observation and assessment centre provided by that authority if there were no other authority with which they or their families already had close ties.
This consultation has now taken place and on 8th June the council's social services committee agreed on behalf of the council to accept the task of caring for the children when they first arrived in the United Kingdom. Like the Select Committee, however, it is anxious that the children should not be subjected to uncertainties and has asked that it be given as long notice as possible of children's arrival. We and DHSS are equally anxious that these transfers should go as smoothly as possible and will naturally do our best to comply with this request. The council has also asked DHSS for an assurance that it would help in any case of difficulty. That assurance, too, is given.
Lastly, the council has asked for the working of the arrangements to be reviewed annually. This would seem prudent to us, and arrangements will be made for that to be done. We believe that, with good will on all sides, the new system will operate as successfully as have the long-standing arrangements for transfer to care in this country of children from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Mr. David Walder: The hon. Gentleman speaks about an annual review. Will the findings of that review be made known to the House?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall consider that request and see what can be done to meet it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF FORCES FOR HOUSE OF COMMONS AND NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 11, line 10, after "or", insert
a full-time member of".
This clause deals with disqualifications, especially with the disqualifications for being a Member of this House or of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
It should not be thought that the question which this amendment raises is unimportant. I agree that the chance of a serving member of the Ulster Defence Regiment desiring at the same time to represent a Northern Ireland constituency in this House is remote, but the clause also covers the qualifications for membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Under the 1973 Act, I think by general consent, the Northern Ireland Assembly is unlikely ever to exist, because that ill-fated Act, whatever else is done, is unlikely to be activated. Nevertheless, what we do in this clause is likely to set the pattern and the precedent for any future devolved Assembly, to use the jargon, which may hereafter be established in Northern Ireland.
Clearly, if there were any such local elected assembly, it would become a highly practical question whether membership of it was consistent with part-time membership of the UDR. As the clause stands, it disqualifies for membership not only those who are full-time members of the UDR but those part-time members who are by far the great majority of that force. I concede at once that there is no precise analogy to the position of a part-time member of the UDR. Nevertheless, I think that there is no doubt on what side of the general dividing line, for purposes of qualification or disqualification at the time, its members should be considered as standing.
11.15 p.m.
Of course, members of the TAVR are not disqualified for membership of the Assembly, but it may be said that the Territorial Army is, in normal circumstances, not embodied, and the military duties of its members consist almost exclusively of training and preparation for the eventuality of embodiment in an emergency or in time of war.
On the other hand, I would call to the Committee's attention the fact that whereas members of a police force are, as such, disqualified if they are full-time members, police reservists, special constables, and so on, are in no way disqualified. Here we have a closer analogy. It is thought that those in full-time service in a police force, by the nature of their situation and their duties in the community, should not duplicate the position by membership of this House or the elected Assembly in Northern Ireland. But the reservists in the police force and the special constables are performing exactly the same duties part-time, in relation to full-time members of the police force, as part-time members of the UDR are in relation to full-time members of that body. Indeed, the special constable or RUC reservist, who is not caught by the disqualification, may well be doing as much duty, as a constable, as a member of the UDR is doing actively in the duties the regiment performs. That is a very close analogy, which shows that the line between disqualification and the absence of disqualification, should, in the case of a police force or a military force, fall


between full-time on the one hand, and part-time on the other.
Then I come to the nature of the UDR itself. I can accept that the Under-Secretary may not have a very extensive acquaintance—though I am sure he has some—with the nature of the work of this unique force which has existed for only seven or eight years, but certainly his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office would tell him that in respect of what I might call their civilian status, without any danger of being misunderstood, there is a complete identity between the position of the part-time member of the UDR and, for example, the TAVR volunteer in either Northern Ireland or Great Britain. The men who, day by day, live ordinary civilian lives, carry on with their jobs or their professional careers, and then at the cost of sleep and their families, and giving up a great deal, and in some cases virtually all recreation, serve for hours, almost invariably at night, in the UDR are really indistinguishable in their quality as ordinary citizens from the Territorial Army member or the police reservist.
Surely, when we are considering disqualification, the question is whether a man by membership of a force has ceased to be an ordinary citizen like his fellow citizens, and therefore has ceased to be properly eligible for this House or another elected assembly, or alternatively, has dedicated himself to the performance of duties which, by their very nature, set him apart from the civilian population and render it undesirable that he should be invested with the double quality of a representative in this House and an executant of the power of the State as a policeman or as a soldier.
The case that I am putting to the Committee and the Government is that whether one looks to the analogies or to the essence of the case, one should look at the actual people, at what their lives are and at what they are doing. Consider whether they have changed their character from that of ordinary civilians to that of professional soldiers or police. There should be no doubt on which side of the line they fall.
I believe, therefore, that it should be clearly stated on the face of the statute, as it will be amended by the clause, that full-time membership of the UDR should

be a disqualification for membership of either this House or a future elected Assembly in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wellbeloved: May I first join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the men who serve on a voluntary basis in the UDR? I hope that I shall be able to convince him of the very sound operational and political reasons why the Government cannot accept his amendment. The present circumstances are that the Government believe that the policy has been clarified by Clause 20(a) in a most satisfactory way. I agree that the UDR is not in the usual sense one of the Regular Forces, the members of which are already disqualified from standing for membership of this House or the Northern Ireland Assembly. But, equally, it is important to have regard to the realities of the present situation in Northern Ireland and the special position there of what, after all, is an operational regiment of the British Army.
The first reality is operational. The members of the UDR operate in formed military bodies of platoon, company and battalion strength. If one looks carefully at the pattern of operations and activity of the regiment, it is, I think, difficult to maintain sensibly the distinction that the amendment seeks to draw between full-time and part-time members.
Part-time members of the UDR are liable to be called out on a number of occasions. During the 1974 General Elections over 50 per cent. of the regiment was called out. Last year, for the Convention Election and the EEC referendum, the figure was 35 per cent. Specific battalions have frequently been called out for extended periods of full-time service, in response to sudden increases in the level of violence, particularly sectarian violence. The UDR maintains a Province reserve company, which is provided by UDR battalions on a rotational basis for service anywhere in the Province.
The UDR—in the form of full-time and part-time members alike—participates in those operations, in aid of the civil power. The UDR's involvement in this way in Northern Ireland cannot be construed as being the same as that of the TAVR, which may be called out only when it appears that national danger is imminent or that a great emergency has


arisen. The TAVR cannot be, and is not being, used to support the civil power; paragraph 0382 of TAVR Regulations 1967 states:
Officers and men of the TAVR are not liable to be called out in aid of the civil power as a military body in the preservation of peace.
Moreover, we have to have regard to the nature of the duties carried out by the UDR and the context in which they are undertaken. The duties, as hon. Members will be aware, include patrolling, vehicle check points, and guard duties. These duties are carried out in the same way as they are by Regular troops. And they are undertaken in circumstances of violence and sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances of a highly charged political environment, the Government are very firmly of the view—it is a view that has been endorsed by successive Governments—that the UDR can operate effectively and as it should only if it can be clearly recognised as a non-sectarian force. In Northern Ireland at present active involvement in politics is inconsistent with that role.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps it will make for clarity if I intervene at this stage. The hon. Gentleman said that the UDR was called out in ordinary circumstances, and is currently called out, for the same duties as the Army. Surely he is overlooking the fact that the police reserve is continually called out for the same purposes as the police in exactly the same political and military conditions.
Secondly, if I may presume on the hon. Gentleman having kindly given way, he said that the previous Administration had taken the same view. Will he explain why the amendment is necessary at this stage, and how the disqualification has been operated hitherto if there has been no statutory basis for it?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I have not overlooked the police point—I shall be coming to that. Hon. Members will observe that the operational and political considerations apply equally to part-time and full-time members. On that ground also the equation of the UDR with the TAVR cannot be sustained. In taking the two factors together, the Government are clear that for the purposes of disqualification it is right to regard members

of the UDR, both full-time and part-time, as more akin to the Regular Forces than the reserves.
I turn to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Policy in this respect is a matter for the Chief Constable, but I am advised that members of the regular and reserve police forces are debarred under their own regulations from taking an active part in politics. This is interpreted to include membership of the House of Commons or any Northern Ireland Assembly. My advice is that the Royal Ulster Reserve is under exactly similar debarment requirements as the proposal in the legislation now before the Committee.

Mr. Powell: Will the Minister deal with my other point before he sits down?

Mr. Wellbeloved: In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, I think I should give him the fullest possible reply. If he will allow me to write to him on that matter, I shall ensure that it is adequately covered.

Mr. Powell: I am not sure that we have yet exhausted the considerations that are raised by the amendment.
If it is necessary to make a disqualification from being a Member of this House—and many would regard membership as a fundamental right of a citizen unless duly suspended by statute—we should be providing for all we disqualify in the same way.
I cannot think it can be satisfactory that we should by statute be stating that all members of the UDR, whether part-time or full-time, are ipso facto disqualified and at the same time leaving on the statute book a provision referring to full-time service in the police, although a particular police force is, on top of that, making its own internal arrangements with those who join it.
We are entitled to require the matter of disqualification, which is an extremely serious one, to be dealt with on all fours for all types of force by statute. If the Government are to insist that the part-time as well as the full-time UDR member should be disqualified, they should in all justice and good legislation apply the same principle to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the same way.
11.30 p.m.
I put another question to the Minister which he did not answer. If this has been the law hitherto, why are we now in 1976 legislating for the disqualification? Is it a disqualification which has hitherto been tacit? Is it something which has been done by agreement. Is it only now that this disqualification is being introduced, although there has been no case in point where a member of the UDR, full-time or part-time, has been elected to either of the assemblies in question? I hope that the Minister will be able to clear those two points.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman to make it even clearer. In this highly charged political environment, it has been the policy of successive Governments to hold firmly to the view that membership of the UDR and of the House or of a future Northern Ireland Assembly is undesirable. That policy is being given the force of law in this legislation.

Mr. Powell: We have certainly got clarification as to what we are actually doing. For the first time, we are introducing the statutory disqualification of members of the UDR, full-time and part-time. But that strengthens the case that, if we are to do that, we should use the same procedure in regard to the RUC.
The Minister will be aware that in the principal Act the police are specifically indicated and their full-time service is distinguished for this purpose from part-time or reserve service. I believe that when we next come to deal with this matter we ought to put it on a proper basis for both forces.
Having said that, I am obliged to accept that there is a close analogy between the duties of the police in all relevant respects and the duties of the UDR. Having regard to the standing convention governing the police reserve and the exclusion of the regular RUC by the principal Act, I do not seek at this stage to press the amendment upon the Government.

Mr. James Dempsey: Before the right hon. Gentleman seeks leave to withdraw the amendment, may I ask whether police regulations in Northern Ireland bar a temporary

constable, as we would call him here, standing for election either to this Parliament or to some type of Assembly there? If so, and if the Chief Constable were to remove that regulation, would temporary officers be able to serve because we had made no provision in this Bill on the same lines as is made for temporary members of the UDR prohibiting them serving in an elected Assembly?

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am very much of his mind. If we are to impose a disqualification to be elected, for example, to this House, that disqualification should by statute be imposed upon those in full-time and reserve service. It is unsatisfactory that we should by statute impose that disqualification in both cases on the UDR, whereas in the case of the RUC we impose it by statute for full-time service and by internal regulation for part-time service. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will unite with me in expressing the view that when we next deal with disqualification we shall put everyone in both forces on the same footing in this respect. At any rate, that matter will have been clarified by this short debate. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 11, line 14, leave out
'section 1(3) of the former Act and section 1' 'subsection (3) of the former section and subsection'.

The Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Like all the Government amendments, these amendments are to clear up drafting errors.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 11, line 16, after "means", insert "the Royal Navy".

No. 5, in page 11, line 19, leave out from "1955" to end of line 21 and insert
'Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and the Women's Royal Naval Service"'.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]

Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 21 and 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

STANDING CIVILIAN COURTS

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 16, line 1, leave out "their" and insert "its" 11.

No. 7, in page 16, line 34, leave out "before a" and insert "by".

No. 8, in page 16, line 36, leave out "paragraph 6" and insert "sub-paragraph".

No. 9, in page 17, line 3, after "trial", insert "before".

No. 10, in page 17, line 4, alter "alone", insert "the magistrate".

No. 11, in page 18, line 33, leave out "such" and insert "Standing Civilian".

No. 12, in page 19, line 15, leave out first "the" and insert "a Standing Civilian".

No. 13, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—
'15A. Section 138 of that Act (restitution or compensation for theft, etc.) shall have effect as if—

(a) the reference to a court-martial in subsection (1) included a reference to a Standing Civilian Court; and
(b) the following subsection were substituted for subsection (9):—

(9) The operation of an order under this section made by a Standing Civilian Court shall be suspended—

(a) in any case until the end of the period within which notice of appeal may be given; and
(b) if such notice is given, until the appeal is determined or abandoned.".'.

No. 14, in page 20, line 39, after the first 'the', insert 'provisions of the'.

No. 15, in page 20, line 40, after '1955' insert 'relating to courts-martial'.

No. 16, in page 21, line 19, leave out 'other'.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4

ORDERS THAT MAY BE MADE ON TRIAL OF CIVILIANS

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 24, line 10, leave out '(5)' and insert '(6)'.

No. 18, in page 24, line 26, leave out
'or a Standing Civilian Court'.

No. 19, in page 24, line 29, leave out court' and insert court-martial'.

No. 20, in page 24, line 31, leave out from first 'in' to 'any' in line 36.

No. 21, in page 24, line 38, leave out from 'offence' to first in 'in' line 39, and insert—
'(8) If a Standing Civilian Court finds a person guilty of any offence (including an offence under sub-paragraph (6) above) committed during a supervision period, the Standing Civilian Court may deal with him for the offence for which the community supervision order was made'.

No. 22, in page 24, line 44, leave out 'under sub-paragraph (7) above' and insert
'for the offence for which the community supervision order was made'.

No. 23, in page 25, line 17, leave out '(6)' and insert '(7) or (8)'.

No. 24, in page 35, line 9, after '"authorised"' insert—
'( ) in sub-paragraph (2), for the word "II" the word "I";'.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5

PROOF AT COURTS-MARTIAL BY WRITTEN STATEMENT

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 35, line 29, leave out 'who is a civilian'.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.

Schedule 8

FINANCIAL PENALTY ENFORCEMENT ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 41, line 21, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 9

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 43, line 44, leave out '1A' and insert '1AA'.

No. 28, in page 45, line 12, leave out those 'sections' and insert 'them'.

No. 29, in page 46, line 10, leave out 'section'.

No. 30, in page 46, line 44, at end insert—
'14A. In Schedule 4 to that Act (application of Act to civilians subject to it) for the words from "and paragraphs" to the end there shall be substituted the words "and in relation to such persons—

(i) paragraphs (e) to (m) of section 43(1) above shall be omitted; and
(ii) paragraph 15 of Schedule 4A below shall have effect in substitution for the words in that subsection from "and references in this Act" to the end."'.

No. 31, in page 47, line 46, leave out 'civilian order made' and insert
'order made by virtue of Schedule 5A to the Army Act 1955 or to th Air Force Act 1955 or Schedule 4A to the Naval Discipline Act 1957'.

No. 32, line page 48, line 3, leave out 'subsection (4A) below,' and insert
'section 17 of the Armed Forces Act 1976 (rehabilitation of civilians).'.

No. 33, in page 48, leave out lines 4 to 17.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 10

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 51, line 17, third column, at end add—
'In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(8).'.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended (in the Select Committee and on recommittal), considered.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I think that there is general agreement in the House that this Bill introduces a number of desirable changes in the law relating to Service men and

associated civilians, and that its provisions will be of benefit both to the individuals directly affected and to the Services and their administration. We have taken to heart the injunctions of the 1971 Select Committee not to introduce "change for the sake of change", and to keep "the interests of the Services themselves" as our prime object, and I think all that we have proposed bears this out. That view, it seems to me, is fully shared by the Select Committee that examined the Bill, as is illustrated by its report.
I should also like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) who chaired the Committee in his usual distinguished and courteous way and to my right hon. and hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who served on the Committee. I believe that the system of Select Committee examination of Armed Forces Bills and military discipline Bills is highly desirable and beneficial to the Services and conducive to the workings of Parliament.
I should like to pay tribute to the Minister of State, Home Department, who played a distinguished part on the Select Committee and who has been kind enough to stay for part of the debate this evening. I am pleased that the recommendations of the Select Committee have been accepted. I wish that the whole debate could have been happy and unanimous, but that is the process of democracy. I am pleased to move the Third Reading, in the knowledge that it will be universally accepted.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. David Walder: We on the Opposition side were pleased to sit on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), and submit ourselves to his summary jurisdiction, but it was a very easy discipline, and I should like to thank him.
Important provisions in the Bill arise out of the last report on this subject, which was made to the House in the Session 1970–71. The first is the increase in the powers of commanding officers. No one who served on the Committee doubts that the ordinary Service man would prefer to be dealt with speedily


by his commanding officer—someone who knows him—rather than wait a considerable time to appear before a court-martial. We did not make that recommendation lightly, but every member of the Committee took the view that has been expressed in the Bill.
The second important provision is the establishment of standing civilian courts. It is to be regretted that that matter was not more fully debated tonight. It is an important matter, concerning families and juveniles serving in BAOR. The system is now akin to civilian law, under the aegis of the military power. This is a commendable development.
Thirdly, I do not think it is unfair to the Ministry to say that these quin-quennial studies of the Armed Forces and their discipline probably represent the right time scale. Five years is a reasonable period within which to consider matters like the power of commanding officers and standing civilian courts. It is in essence a period of experiment. Obviously, Ministers will consider developments within that period.
However, the Committee felt that we should at least have the opportunity annually to consider discipline in the Armed Forces, and that to give it up would be to abdicate our responsibilities. Who knows what might arise in one period of 12 months which we should wish to consider? Such matters cannot be fully considered in the ordinary defence debates, which deal with general policy rather than with particular questions such as these.
On these three matters there was unanimity in the Committee. I am happy to commend the report and to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

TELEVISION RECEPTION (KINGSWOOD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: The matter of the poor television reception

in my Kingswood constituency is of great concern to many of my constituents, especially those who are unfortunate enough to live in the Woodstock area of Kingswood, which was formerly a mining area.
Many people living there who purchase or agree to hire a television set from a shop in Bristol or Kingswood find when they get the set home that there is such bad reception that it is impossible to watch any programme. In the days of black and white television, reception was always bad in Kingswood, but now, in the days of colour television, reception is impossible.
I have been inundated with complaints over a long period, as have the television dealers over a wide area, and I have discussed these matters with them and with several aerial erectors in the area. The dealers and aerial erectors are most unhappy about the reception in my constituency, particularly in Woodstock.
On 13th January 1976 I wrote to the Home Office, but the reply I received from my noble Friend the Minister of State was not very satisfactory. I wrote setting out the specific problem of my constituent Mr. Cox, of 74 Orchard Vale, who has to have a 20-ft. aerial on a pole on top of his chimney stack to enable him to get a television picture. The Home Office reply stated that
Kingswood generally is considered to be well served by the Mendip high power main station and the Ilchester Crescent relay station.
The area is not well served. Whoever did the research for that letter knows nothing of the problem. The Ilchester Crescent relay station is on the other side of Bristol and does not help us.
The Home Office letter also stated that advice had been sought from the Post Office interference investigation staff, who act as agents of the Home Office. They confirmed that the screening effects of intervening high ground, on which houses have recently been built, was the reason for the unsatisfactory reception from the Mendip station. They confirmed that Mr. Cox's aerial reached approximately 40 ft from ground level and went on to say that Mr. Cox should seek advice from a reputable local dealer. The letter was inaccurate and badly researched, and that is why I am pursuing the matter tonight.
The Home Office has not considered the tremendous television reception difficulties of my constituents, many of whom have realised that buying a television licence is a complete waste of money. A 20-ft aerial on a chimney stack creates difficulties and is impracticable, for the following reasons. The pole is liable to break off regularly, especially during high wind; it has to be replaced, and this involves additional cost. It causes damage to property and often causes the chimney stack to crack. Perhaps more important, it represents a danger to life and limb, because it could fall on the roof, or what is worse, on a passing pedestrian. Insurance cover cannot be obtained because insurance companies say that the risk is too great.
Evidence has been given by television dealers which proves that television sets wear out more quickly under such conditions. That hits the pockets of my constituents if they own their own sets and the pockets of television dealers if the sets are rented. The situation represents a waste of resources. Television dealers are getting fed up with the problems, and many are thinking seriously about the future of business in the area.
As more people switch to colour sets, more people in Woodstock are without good reception than with it. Kingswood is hilly and was once a mining area. As more houses are built on the higher ground, the reception becomes worse for everyone. Many homes were particularly badly affected earlier this year when a fair was held on high ground at Rodway Common. That was disgraceful. I have a list of the roads in Kingswood which are affected by bad television reception. It was compiled from information supplied by television dealers who are concerned not only about the goodwill of their business but about their future prospects in the area. I shall be pleased to pass that list to the Minister in the hope that it will help the Post Office interference investigation staff when they look at the matter again.
My long-suffering constituents need help. A relay station is needed on the eastern fringe of Bristol. The relay station at Ilchester Crescent is not near enough to help the situation in Kingswood. I know that that would involve expenditure and that in days of public

expenditure restraint such problems are always cropping up.
I have a map which shows the true position of the Bristol side of the Bristol Channel and I have compared it with the other side of the channel. As a Welsh Member, the Minister will know that on the Bristol side we have two relay stations and that on the Welsh side there are many more. The reason is that the terrain is so bad that it has been very sensible to have a great number of relay stations on that side of the Bristol Channel. But the eastern fringe of Bristol and my constituency just outside it have very similar problems. Therefore, I ask that we should be given similar consideration.
Efforts should be made to provide something to help us. I do not know whether help should be in the form of a relay station or a small booster. Responsible action is needed. As the Home Office told me in its letter, great care is taken to provide the best possible service. I well remember having a meeting with some of the people affected on the Friday night before the Cup Final. They were all worried about what the reception would be like next day. People should not be subject to that kind of worry. I hope that action can be taken to help us to overcome the problem, which is increasing in the Kingswood area.

12.2 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) both for the persistence with which he has tackled the matter and for the eloquent way in which he has put his constituents' case. Despite the late hour, nobody could have put it with more clarity and force on their behalf. Inevitably, what I have to say must in part sound like a lecture on broadcasting and transmission policy generally, but I hope to relate it as nearly as possible to the matters which my hon. Friend has raised.
The first point I should like to make is that the planning and provision of television transmitting stations are the responsibility of the broadcasting organisations. They naturally closely co-operate with each other and with the Home Office.
My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the fact that the advent of UHF 625-line colour television has aggravated the situation, because for colour one needs a somewhat stronger signal. Wherever VHF is available, a weaker signal gives an adequate picture.
The principle which is followed is that a transmitting station should provide all three services—BBC1, BBC2 and ITV. There are two categories of stations. The main or high-power stations have a transmitting radius of 30 to 40 miles, and the relay stations, of low power, fill in gaps, sometimes covering only a mile or two in their immediate vicinity. It is estimated that when the final pattern of broadcasting transmission is established we shall have about 50 main stations and about 400 relay stations covering the whole country.
Kingswood is in the area of the Mendip transmitter, one of the main, high-power transmitters, about 15 miles to the south, so that theoretically at any rate it should be well within the compass envisaged by the radius of which I have spoken. But there are blind spots in all areas. We have not received many complaints, except from my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents, but I accept that the fact that we have received none may not be an accurate reflection of the situation.
My hon. Friend has spoken about the Ilchester Crescent relay station. I accept that it is some way from Kingswood, but he will equally accept that there was some controversy in the Bristol area about the exact siting of the Mendip transmitter. The transmitter is further away from Bristol than the BBC would like. Had it been sited elsewhere, the signal might have been stronger and more useful in the constituency.
About 96 per cent. of the population of Britain are covered by UHF transmissions, but about 4 per cent., or 2 million people, are not covered at all by UHF. The efforts of the broadcasting authorities are concentrated mainly on bringing as many people as possible from the remaining 4 per cent. into receipt of such a signal as quickly as possible.
The broadcasting authorities at present are engaged in extending coverage to hamlets of 1,000 or more population,

mainly in rural areas where, if anything, dependence on television as recreation and entertainment is stronger than in the town.
The problem of all broadcasting and one of the shortcomings that science has not overcome is that the terrain can obstruct the signal even in areas which in theory are well within the range of the transmitter. Some pockets might amount to a square mile or so or to only a few houses which do not receive the same quality of picture as the area generally.
My hon. Friend has fairly singled out Woodstock and Chiphouse as two particular areas in his constituency which suffer. All I can say to him is that we looked into the whole area, as my noble Friend told him in a letter in March. On that occasion the Post Office acted as our agent.
Obviously my hon. Friend feels strongly about the matter, and he mentioned that he has more evidence which seems to suggest a wider spread of poor reception than we had perhaps imagined. I promise him that if, in accordance with his offer, he passes to me the list which he has mentioned relating to streets which have poor reception, not only shall we approach the BBC again with the list, pointing out the numbers of people affected, but we shall put the BBC in touch with my hon. Friend so that he can communicate directly with the corporation and discuss the situation.
The Bristol area was covered at an early stage by the UHF system, and it is inevitable that part of the feeling which lies behind some of the complaints to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention is an impression that nothing is being done in Bristol because the area has already been covered. There is, however, financial and technical constraint upon the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and it would be idle to suppose otherwise. We have to work out the priorities. The corporation and the authority are right in concentrating mainly, but not exclusively, on covering areas of the country which are not already covered. I recall that in the broadcasting debate in the House a week ago tonight there was complaint from some rural constituencies that they had no coverage whatever in the UHF band.
We believe that the overcoming of that situation would not only contribute towards the justice of the matter but would assist in countering the drift from rural areas that sometimes occurs when young people are not content to forgo amenities in the same way as perhaps their fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers would have done without them.
Within the constraints that are obvious in the matter of finance and within the inherent limitations on reception which apply throughout the whole of broadcasting while technical difficulties still exist, the corporation and the authority do whatever is possible to provide good reception wherever possible.
My hon. Friend drew a comparison between his area and South Wales. I can understand the problems that exist in hilly districts, and I certainly understand the difficulties of reception in hilly mining districts because my home is in an area so affected. However, the main station in South Wales is situated on the coast in the Vale of Glamorgan. Consequently, the hilly areas are behind the coast rather than between the coast and the receiver, which is the position in my hon. Friend's constituency. I can well understand the erratic nature of

reception and the complaints that can arise when people become maddened by the fact that they cannot get reception when everything seems to point to the fact that they should be receiving a very good picture indeed.
I shall do what I can to assist my hon. Friend's constituents in this matter. I do not promise that a result can be obtained easily or quickly. I promise, however, that I shall draw to the attention of the BBC the facts which my hon. Friend makes available to me. I shall ask the corporation to look into the matter and I shall contact my hon. Friend, so that he and his constituents may feel that every possible representation that can be made is listened to. If that occurs, I hope that in the fullness of time the reception in the area of my hon. Friend's constituents will improve and they will be satisfied with the standard of reception.
In the meantime, I reiterate that my hon. Friend has done a service to the House and to his constituents in drawing attention to these matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will in turn be satisfied with the response he has been given.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.